Funny situation (12C1b)

[barmar]

I think you've got it backwards. Over weak NT you tend to interfere with constructive hands, because you may be able to make something (even a game). Over strong NT you interfere with weak, shapely hands for preemptive reasons. And that seems to be how it was explained at the table: the spades should be longer if NT is strong.

[szgyula]

I think you've got it backwards. Over weak NT you tend to interfere with constructive hands, because you may be able to make something (even a game). Over strong NT you interfere with weak, shapely hands for preemptive reasons. And that seems to be how it was explained at the table: the spades should be longer if NT is strong.

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences. My only argument is that the infraction made it worse. I am only seeking compensation for that extra damage, nothing beyond that. Thus, I expected a ruling that makes an educated guess about the outcome of the 2N contract and assign that score. Nothing beyond that.

[iviehoff]

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences. My only argument is that the infraction made it worse. I am only seeking compensation for that extra damage, nothing beyond that.

Precisely. If there was any poor action, it occurred before the point at which the damage from the infraction occurred, and adjusting for the infraction does not remove the effect of the poor action. So, in practical terms for making a ruling, we simply ignore it.

[barmar]

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post that you quoted. I was simply supporting your explanation of the agreement, not commenting on East's judgement.

[bluejak]

While I think I am merely repeating, perhaps I might just summarise the basic position, ignoring the judgement behind the ruling.

 

When there is an infraction leading to damage, the score is adjusted for the offending side under Law 12C1C [most of the world, including Hungary] or 12C1E [North America]. 12C1B does not affect this.

 

If the non-offending side has contributed to its own poor result by committing, after the infraction:

 

• wild action, eg they go mad and make a ridiculous double of a clearly making contract, or
  
• gambling action, generally considered the double shot, eg they double a contract which might or might not make, hoping for a favourable ruling if it does make, or an excellent score it if it does not, or
  
• commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction, eg a revoke, lead out of turn, or a shockingly bad play
  

then Law 12C1B means they lose redress in the amount of damage caused by one or more of the above. We refer to such actions as SEWoG, standing for Serious Error, Wild or Gambling.

 

So the first point is that if the TD's ruling is based on Law 12C1B then he must adjust for the offending side.

 

Now, for it to be SEWoG, you compare it with normal play, not with a double dummy analysis! Within the last week I played 1NT -4: Deep Finesse pointed out unkindly that I could have made it. No-one thinks I misplayed it: I had a club suit in an entry-less hand and have to assume it is 4-1 to make it, going off when it is 3-2.

 

There have already been some cases even amongst the pretty well trained EBU TDs of over-use of Deep Finesse's analysis. The TD should be looking at how the hand would normally be played, and why it went four off, and it it takes a very bad mistake for him to conclude it was a Serious Error, and therefore deny redress under Law 12C1B. I leave it to others to judge the actual hand.

[iviehoff]

If the non-offending side has contributed to its own poor result by committing, after the infraction: (SEWOG)

Unfortunately you didn't address what for some is the most difficult legal point of this case.

 

In the present case, the alleged SEWOG (let us consider the case when it actually is SEWOG) occurred after the point in time at which the MI was provided, but before the point in time at which the non-offending player made use of the MI to his disadvantage.

 

I don't see it as a problem myself, but other people do, so a definitive statement from you on this issue would be useful.

[bluejak]

<puzzled>

 

The infraction is the MI. After the infraction is after the MI was given.

 

What other interpretation is possible?

[iviehoff]

<puzzled>

The infraction is the MI. After the infraction is after the MI was given.

What other interpretation is possible?

Order of events:

MI provided

SEWOG action by NOS

MI used by innocent player to his side's disadvantage

 

The Director argued that there was no redress because a SEWOG action followed the point of time of the infraction. In my view this is a serious misunderstanding of 12C1b, at the least.

 

Therefore a clear statement from you of exactly how we adjust (ie apply 12C1b) in the situation where the order of events described above occurs would be useful.

 

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

[bluejak]

Order of events:

MI provided

SEWOG action by NOS

MI used by innocent player to his side's disadvantage

 

The Director argued that there was no redress because a SEWOG action followed the point of time of the infraction. In my view this is a serious misunderstanding of 12C1b, at the least.

 

Therefore a clear statement from you of exactly how we adjust (ie apply 12C1b) in the situation where the order of events described above occurs would be useful.

 

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

 

(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.

I am completely lost. A player gives his opponent MI. According to Law 12C1B quoted above SEWoG applies from that moment. I really do not understand any other interpretation.

 

In the case in point the TD misunderstood

• what constituted a SEWoG, and
  
• that Law 12C1B only applied to one side.
  

But his timing was fine: the play followed the MI being given and thus Law 12C1B could have applied.

[iviehoff]

I am completely lost. A player gives his opponent MI. According to Law 12C1B quoted above SEWoG applies from that moment. I really do not understand any other interpretation.

Yes, it is very easy. I just wanted you to spell it out since apparently people find it hard to understand.

 

I really didn't want to put words into your mouth, but here is my interpretation of the situation. It would be useful if you would confirm it is correct.

 

Since the decision which incurred damage (as a result of MI provided earlier) occurred at a point subsequent to the SEWOG, a straightforward adjustment, based upon the action that the NOS would have taken if correctly informed at the moment of the infected decision, and giving the same score to both sides, is an adjustment consistent with 12C1b. This is because, since the adjusted action is subsequent to the SEWOG, the NOS suffer the cost of the SEWOG in the adjusted score. This adjustment for the OS is precisely the normal adjustment for an OS.

[blackshoe]

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

This logic is flawed because the premise "that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI" is false. Law 20F4 imposes the obligation only if the player subsequently, after giving MI, realizes that he has done so. He has no obligation to do anything if he does not realize he has given MI.

[iviehoff]

This logic is flawed because the premise "that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI" is false. Law 20F4 imposes the obligation only if the player subsequently, after giving MI, realizes that he has done so. He has no obligation to do anything if he does not realize he has given MI.

OK, I'll withdraw that one then. It shouldn't make any difference. If it was true it would just give us an easy way of coming to the same conclusion.

[blackshoe]

OK, I'll withdraw that one then. It shouldn't make any difference. If it was true it would just give us an easy way of coming to the same conclusion.

What conclusion? That there was an infraction after the SEWoG? No basis for an infraction means no infraction. Or do you now have some new basis in mind?

[iviehoff]

What conclusion?

The argument I offer in post #35. The words I have withdrawn in #33, the final paragraph there, were only ever a suggestion of an alternative line of argument resulting in the same conclusion.

[blackshoe]

I don't really understand your post #35. That's one reason I left it to David to answer. B-)

[bluejak]

Yes, it is very easy. I just wanted you to spell it out since apparently people find it hard to understand.

 

I really didn't want to put words into your mouth, but here is my interpretation of the situation. It would be useful if you would confirm it is correct.

 

Since the decision which incurred damage (as a result of MI provided earlier) occurred at a point subsequent to the SEWOG, a straightforward adjustment, based upon the action that the NOS would have taken if correctly informed at the moment of the infected decision, and giving the same score to both sides, is an adjustment consistent with 12C1b. This is because, since the adjusted action is subsequent to the SEWOG, the NOS suffer the cost of the SEWOG in the adjusted score. This adjustment for the OS is precisely the normal adjustment for an OS.

I am sorry, but having read this a few times I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying, so I cannot confirm or deny you are correct.

[iviehoff]

I am sorry, but having read this a few times I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying, so I cannot confirm or deny you are correct.

I'll try again. To implement 12C1b in the situation described*, you may as well ignore that there was ever any SEWOG, because this produces the correct adjustment under 12C1b. Is that clear enough?

 

The explanation for this delightfully simple solution is that, because the damage occurred after the SEWOG, a standard adjustment to rectify the damage, includes the effect of the SEWOG for the NOS, as described in 12C1b. And is also the correct adjustment for the OS.

 

*The situation described is MI given first, then SEWOG, then NOS take decision with MI that damages them.

[Fluffy]

nobody understands you because what you say makes no sense. You seem to think that because SEWOG is prior to another decision that suposedly is based on MI, that you can adjust like if the MI ocurred after the SEWOG. That is not true.

[WellSpyder]

nobody understands you because what you say makes no sense. You seem to think that because SEWOG is prior to another decision that suposedly is based on MI, that you can adjust like if the MI ocurred after the SEWOG. That is not true.

Well I think I have finally grasped what iviehoff is saying, and it makes sense to me. I think the point is that the DAMAGE occurred after the SEWOG, so in adjusting for the damage you are still adjusting to a position that includes the effect of the SEWOG. Since that is the case, there is no need to adjust differently for the OS and NOS.

[bluejak]

I'll try again. To implement 12C1b in the situation described*, you may as well ignore that there was ever any SEWOG, because this produces the correct adjustment under 12C1b. Is that clear enough?

 

The explanation for this delightfully simple solution is that, because the damage occurred after the SEWOG, a standard adjustment to rectify the damage, includes the effect of the SEWOG for the NOS, as described in 12C1b. And is also the correct adjustment for the OS.

 

*The situation described is MI given first, then SEWOG, then NOS take decision with MI that damages them.

If that is what you are saying then I do not agree. The reason I do not like such generalisations and also prefer discussion of real cases is because it is remarkably difficult to say what is wrong with such an approach, apart from the fact that it seems completely unnecessary.

 

When adjusting for damage, first you adjust for the offending side (OS) under Law 12C1C or 12C1E as appropriate. Then, you consider the non-offending side (NOS). Their basic adjustment may be different from the OS under Law 12C1E, or may be the same: the standards are different. If ruling under Law 12C1C then it is usually the same as for the OS.

 

Having decided the basic adjustment for the NOS you then consider a further adjustment for the NOS only if they committed SEWoG either before or after the use of any MI, so long as it is after the irregularity, in this case after the MI was first given. The further adjustment is in the amount of the effect of the SEWoG, but the NOS will not get worse than table score.

 

Does this help?

[iviehoff]

Having decided the basic adjustment for the NOS you then consider a further adjustment for the NOS only if they committed SEWoG either before or after the use of any MI, so long as it is after the irregularity, in this case after the MI was first given. The further adjustment is in the amount of the effect of the SEWoG, but the NOS will not get worse than table score.

 

Does this help?

No, I am asking you to explain the effect of those words in the specific situation I have described, which I believe to be sufficiently well-defined to admit of a specific discussion. But if you want an even more specific case, you can use the specific case of the OP, accepting the argument that the alleged SEWOG was SEWOG, but rejecting the argument about double dummy analysis.

[campboy]

Here's what happens. Damage occurs when, as a result of an irregularity, the result obtained is worse than the expectation without the irregularity. So here we have a table result which is -200 and the expectation without the irregularity is say -100 for 2NT off 2.

 

NOS do not receive redress for however much damage was caused by the SEWoG action. Without the SEWoG action the contract would have been 2♥, and let's say this makes 8 tricks for -110. So the SEWoG caused the swing from -110 to -200 and that's the bit they don't get redress for.

 

So let's say -200 gets you x matchpoints, -110 gets you y and -100 gets you z, with x<=y<=z. The NOS have a table score worth x. They get an adjustment worth an extra z-x, but the amount of damage caused by the SEWoG is y-x. So you subtract the SEWoG damage from the total damage and get (z-x)-(y-x)=z-y, and then add this to their actual MP score to get x+z-y. This is somewhere between x and z, as expected.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj98hkt732djt4ck4&w=sqhqj95da86caqt75&n=sat32ha4dkq3cj986&e=sk7654h86d9752c32&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14%20to%20E%2C%20no%20alert%20to%20W)p2hpp2sppp]399|300|

szgyula writes "{SNIP] Screens were in use. 1N was alerted to E (weak, 12-14) and was not alerted to W. E-W uses different defense against weak and strong 1NT openings. 2H was explained as natural, weak bid on both sides. W, as dummy, became aware of this during the play. After the play finished (down 4), W called the director. The director accepted the MI. W claimed that, according to the system, the 2S bid, against a pair playing strong NT shows a strong, long S (6-7 in length, some value in side suits) while over a weak 1NT it is a balancing bid with a 5 card suit. W claims that in the later case, he would have bid 2N with 15HCP and 1435 distribution with good stoppers in H (QJ9x). The director also accepted this claim. Now comes the funny part. The 2S contract, with double dummy, goes down 2. 2N, with double dummy, goes down 3. Thus, the director rules that 2S is a better contract for the NOS than the 2N, thus, no compensation. W argues that damage was done as the actual result was less favourable, compared to the expected result of 2N (we have a not very advanced pair as NOS). The director invokes 12C1b, saying that the NOS was in a better contract and the fact that they went down 4 is a major mistake, unrelated to the infraction. [sNIP]"[/hv]IMO ...

• According to local regulations there was MI, so the director may consider a procedural penalty.
• To rule a SEWOG by East needs more convincing evidence than we're given.
• West says that, after over a natural weak weakness take-out, a protective 2♠ has different meanings, depending in the strength of the notrump opener. We are told that the director accepted West's statement. Presumably, the director sought confirmatory evidence -- As Fluffy says, this seems an unlikely agreement.
• The director is convinced by West's argument, that, with correct information, he would correct 2♠ to 2N. This does not necessarily entail an adjustment . In practical play, 2N may be a bit better than 2♠ but not by much. Double-dummy analysis is of little relevance.
• Under current rules, West might protect himself by asking about the strength of the notrump. The world and his wife play transfers over a strong notrump. That might alert an experienced West that the bidding is odd.
• On the evidence presented, the director's "result stands" ruling seems OK, but his reasoning is questionable.

[iviehoff]

Here's what happens. Damage occurs when, as a result of an irregularity, the result obtained is worse than the expectation without the irregularity. So here we have a table result which is -200 and the expectation without the irregularity is say -100 for 2NT off 2.

 

NOS do not receive redress for however much damage was caused by the SEWoG action. Without the SEWoG action the contract would have been 2♥, and let's say this makes 8 tricks for -110. So the SEWoG caused the swing from -110 to -200 and that's the bit they don't get redress for.

 

So let's say -200 gets you x matchpoints, -110 gets you y and -100 gets you z, with x<=y<=z. The NOS have a table score worth x. They get an adjustment worth an extra z-x, but the amount of damage caused by the SEWoG is y-x. So you subtract the SEWoG damage from the total damage and get (z-x)-(y-x)=z-y, and then add this to their actual MP score to get x+z-y. This is somewhere between x and z, as expected.

I don't believe that this is correct for two reasons. One is that rather odd situation of y < x has caused you to get your signs mixed up. The other is that this method of adjustment, (getting the signs right), makes the NOS suffer the damage of the SEWOG twice over.

 

Rather curiously with these numbers, with y < x; there is not damage from the SEWOG, rather it woul dhave been profitable had there not been the MI. I think probably when the SEWOG would have been profitable without the MI, we should not take account of it at all, because the adjustment for the SEWOG is only in the damage for it. But you will see that the signs you have given to sizing the "damage" makes it damage, so you have the sign of that wrong.

 

But this y < x situation is getting us confused, and makes an unusual case. Let's look at a more normal situation with x < y. For example, pretend that without the SEWOG (or MI) they would have got -50, which is better than what they would have got with MI and the SEWOG, surely a more usual situation, so that there is actually self-inflicted damage from the SEWOG, ie from -50 to -100 without the MI.

 

This philosophy of adjustment you have laid out first adjusts their score from (MP for) -200 to (MP for) -100. But these are both scores with are for what would have happeninged after the SEWOG. So the -100 outcome is an outcome already infected by the damage of the SEWOG. If you then say that the SEWOG cost the effect of (MP for) -50 to (MP for) -100, and charge them that, then you are making them suffer the effect of the SEWOG twice over, because in fact they have already suffered it in the (MP for) 100 score. Indeed it is entirely possible that the difference between (MP for) -50 and (MP for) -100 is larger than (MP for) -200 to (MP for) -100, which gives them a final score worse than (MP for) -200, yet nevertheless they did suffer damage from the MI.

 

So I think this actually reinforces my belief that I am right, at least until I have some deeper revelation.

[campboy]

I haven't the faintest idea what you are saying. x is the number of matchpoints the NOS would receive for a score of -200, and y is the number of matchpoints they would receive for a score of -110. So x cannot be more than y.

 

In this instance there were five scores, -200, -200, -200, -200 and -100. I assume this includes the table score. So x=3. If we change this pair's -200 to a -110 they would now get 6 matchpoints, and if we change it to a -100 they would get 7. So y=6 and z=7. After the adjustment they actually get x+z-y which is 4.