Serious error, unrelated to the infractions

[RMB1]

(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

Laws and ruling question from Interesting Bridge Hands.

 

1♣-P-3♣-3♠; P-4♠-5♣-P; P-P. Result 5♣-4.

 

For purpose of my question, I will assume:

• The final pass was a serious error, 96% would double.
  
• 3♣ was preemptive and should have been alerted.
  
• The failure to alert was not apparent until dummy was spread.
  
• Last to speak would double if 3♣ had been alerted.
  
• We would adjust for the offending side to 5♣X.
  

Do we deny redress (Law 12C1b applies) to the non-offending side was the failing to double was a serious error?

 

Or was the failure to double related to infration, so was not a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", and so the non-offending side get the adjustment to 5♣X.

[barmar]

If you believe the player when he says that the reason he didn't double was because he thought the 3♣ bidder had a good hand, then the error was directly related to the infraction. Therefore, that clause doesn't apply, and you can adjust.

 

If you don't believe him, then he's apparently going for a double shot, and the quoted clause prevents him.

[peachy]

I viewed the thread. Not doubling was a serious bridge error; it did not matter for the decision to double whether 3C was weak, invitational, or even forcing. The double IMO is that obvious, supported by the poll in the linked thread.

 

The failure to alert in this case IMO was not related to the failure to double [= the damage] so score should not be adjusted. However, the TD may award a PP if there is reason for giving it, for example, by history of failing to alert. The PP's are normally not routinely awarded so awarding one here is not automatic.

[nigel_k]

If you take the phrase 'unrelated to the infraction' literally, then you should adjust. Given the assumption 'Last to speak would double if 3♣ had been alerted', clearly there is a relationship between the infraction and the failure to double.

 

But I think a better interpretation is that if the cause and effect relationship between the infraction and the bad result relies on a 'serious error' by the nonoffending side, then you can regard the bad result as being unrelated.

 

So you can deny relief under 12C1b if it is determined that the failure to double would be a serious error even 3♣ was a limit raise (and therefore the non-alert was correct).

[MFA]

Dummy should tell about the failure to alert before the lead. Therefore TD can reopen the auction regarding the final pass, and if the player thinks he now has a double, he can double.

[MFA]

Given the facts I think the result should be adjusted to 5♣X.

[blackshoe]

Michael is correct about the requirement to call the director and correct the MI before the opening lead. So the OS committed two infractions, one of Law 21B1a, the other of Law 20F5b. Note that the latter uses the word "must", so a PP should accrue "more often than not". I agree the score should be adjusted to 5♣X-4 for both sides. This is not a "serious error unrelated to the infraction" case.

[peachy]

This is not a "serious error unrelated to the infraction" case.

The hand that was last to speak is Axxx, xx, Axx, KQxx.

 

I understand that if the TD judges that *not to Dbl with this hand is not a serious error*, he is empowered to make that judgment and rule accordingly.

 

However, when a poll is conducted [how fortunate, the poll was conducted as a bridge problem, not a legal issue, before this even became a ruling question... :)] then ignoring a poll where "26 out of 27 people Double, regardless of what 3C means", seems to me like a case where TD who adjusts here, is ignoring the poll results and rules that his own judgment overrides poll results.

 

This is hypothetical, I don't mean you Ed! Maybe you didn't look at the hand.

[blackshoe]

I didn't look at the hand, so I don't know anything about a poll.

[jallerton]

The results of the poll suggest that the failure to double was an unusual action. An inspection of the hand and auction suggests that the failure to double 5♣ was an error, quite possibly a serious one.

 

However, if the TD determines that this particular West would doubled 5♣ with correct information, then he is ruling that the "serious error" would not have arisen without the infraction. Hence the "serious error" is not "unrelated to the infraction" and both sides get the score from 5♣x-4.

 

Of course, if the TD determines that this particular West would not doubled 5♣ with correct information, then the infraction has not caused any damage and the table result should stand for both sides.

[mycroft]

...and if it was a serious error/wild-or-gambling action/failure to play bridge, the declaring side still get 5Cx-4.

 

Here is one case where Advanced players get hosed and novices don't - they can't count to 40, so they can't see that someone must be confused, or that the chance of two of their three tricks going away along with partner's KQxxxxx and out is still pretty small (oh, and they get the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't believe in 1C-3C being preemptive, maybe, where advanced players will not). So for them, it may not be a serious error - just bad judgement.

[MFA]

The results of the poll suggest that the failure to double was an unusual action.  An inspection of the hand and auction suggests that the failure to double 5♣ was an error, quite possibly a serious one.

 

However, if the TD determines that this particular West would doubled 5♣ with correct information, then he is ruling that the "serious error" would not have arisen without the infraction.  Hence the "serious error" is not "unrelated to the infraction" and both sides get the score from 5♣x-4.

 

Of course, if the TD determines that this particular West would not doubled 5♣ with correct information, then the infraction has not caused any damage and the table result should stand for both sides.

Yes, even though the decision should be deemed to be related to the infraction, we may still judge that the MI was not the reason for not doubling. We may judge that he just fell asleep, so the MI didn't have any impact. We have to analyse his hand. If he had had ♣KQJT there would be no adjustment for instance, no matter what the opponents had explained about their respective strengths.

 

The actual AA♣KQxx hand is so strong that we are close to making such a ruling imo. I'm only adjusting if the defenders are not very experienced.