gordontd Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've just found this paper in which at the top of p2 the Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee appears to take an approach at odds with the wording of the 2007 Laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I've just found this paper in which at the top of p2 the Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee appears to take an approach at odds with the wording of the 2007 Laws.But this is a SEWOG case is it not? That is why he is considering the "normal result after the infraction", in order to assess what the damage of the "utterly undisciplined" 3S call is, as opposed to the damage from the infraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 But this is a SEWOG case is it not? No, I don't think so, which is why he didn't use that wording. He did give another paper on the same course where he discussed how bad a play had to be before being considered to be a serious error. But in the paper I linked to, he sets out a procedure for judging damage, which seems not to follow the laws and makes no mention of SEWoG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjoerds Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 scenario 1.3SAC There is no correlation between the infraction and the result. scenario 2.50% 3SAC and 50% 3SA-1. Different information can lead to a different choice. Scenario 3. 75% 3SA-1 and 25% 3SAC. The same as scenario 2 but with a different outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.