Funny situation (12C1b)

[iviehoff]

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.

Sorry got the letters mixed up. Do it without letters.

 

-100 is a better score than -110. It is a strange situation that the expected score without SEWOG, -110, is a better score than the expected score with SEWOG but no MI, ie -100.

 

So actually the effect of the SEWOG here is "profit", but you have called it damage and charged them for it, when actually it is profit.

 

That's only the first of the two problems with your method. The other is that you have charged them for the SEWOG twice over. Pretend -110 is -50 instead and perhaps you will see what I mean.

[campboy]

Actually what is strange is that it even makes sense to talk about the score with SEWoG but without the infraction. But it is perfectly normal for the score without SEWoG to lie between the table score and the expected score without the irregularity.

 

Yes, the expression I gave was simplified for the case where x<=y<=z - the normal case. The amount of damage which was caused by the SEWoG cannot be negative, nor can it be more than all the damage. So in fact the damage caused by the SEWoG is not y-x, but min(max(y-x,0),z-x), and the final adjustment is to z-min(max(y-x,0),z-x). If y<=x then the SEWoG caused no damage and so the adjustment is to z (the full adjustment). If y>=z then all the damage was caused by the SEWoG, so NOS get x (table score).

 

What you seem to be saying is "were it not for the infraction, the SEWoG wouldn't have caused damage, so we shouldn't deny redress". But this is the normal situation. Suppose OS use UI to bid 4♠, there is a WoG double, and it makes. Were it not for the infraction the WoG action wouldn't have caused any damage, because it would have been impossible. Yet we still deny redress.

 

Now if your argument is actually "since the SEWoG would have been successful were it not for the infraction we shouldn't consider it a SEWoG in the first place" then that makes a lot more sense to me. I deliberately made no comment as to whether or not it actually was a SEWoG. But if it is a SEWoG then it clearly "contributed to [the] damage", as without it there would be less damage, so we should deny some redress.

[iviehoff]

Now if your argument is actually "since the SEWoG would have been successful were it not for the infraction we shouldn't consider it a SEWoG in the first place" then that makes a lot more sense to me. I deliberately made no comment as to whether or not it actually was a SEWoG. But if it is a SEWoG then it clearly "contributed to [the] damage", as without it there would be less damage, so we should deny some redress.

This is not the point I am making. A SEWOG action can sometimes be successful, even if the other side play best bridge. You make a crassly stupid double of what ought to be a solid contract, but it turns out that the contract is always going off due to some weird and unlikely happenstance you could have had no idea of when you doubled - eg declarer can't untangle his communications to cash his copious tricks.

 

You say that it is common for the expected score with the SEWOG and no MI to be better than the score with no SEWOG and no MI, but cite only the common case where the SEWOG follows the damage-incurring incident. In the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI, that ordering of sizes would be unusual, (it would be the successful gamble mentioned above), and that is the situation we are discussing. That is why I say that, for this sequence of events, this ordering of sizes is unusual, not in the wider case. But you do now seem to acknowledge with your mins and maxes that when the SEWOG would have been profitable but the for the subsequent damage from the prior offence, there should be no adjustment for the SEWOG. Good.

 

Anyway, this is a side-show from what I consider to be the main problem, which is that you are trying to charge for the SEWOG twice over, in the case of the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI. I'll make the scores a more likely sizing.

 

If we have:

Table Score -200 > MP 1

Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 4

Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't arise in this scenario) -50 > MP 6

 

Then, according to you the adjustment for the damage is 3 MP, but the adjustment for the SEWOG is 2. So you'll be trying to give them 2 MP according to your formula.

 

But this double-charges them for the SEWOG. The MP4 score already incorporates the damage of the SEWOG, it is based upon a sequence of events that is subsequent. So charging them 2 for teh SEWOG on top is double charging them.

 

And what would you do if it was

Table Score -200 > MP 1

Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 3

Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't occur in this scenario) -50 > MP 6

 

Now the SEWOG cost is 3, but the damage is only 2, so wipes it out entirely. Are you saying that they are due no restitution at all for the MI that damaged them? Clearly the difference between 6 MP and 1 MP isn't due to the SEWOG, only 3 of it is.

[helene_t]

I don't think EW's explanation of their defense against weak and strong NT is credible. What they probably mean is that against strong NT, a direct overcall is based on shape, not general values, while against weak NT it requires values and may be less shape. So W would have expected a 6-card suit if E had made a direct overcall.

 

Now E balanced so how is the negative inference from E not overcalling 2♠ immediately affected by the fact that W thought NS were playing strong NT? Probably there is an inference that he rates not to have a six-card suit.

 

So for several reasons, no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

The laws say that when MI has been given, and damage occurs, the score should be adjusted. There is one caveat: if the NOS subsequently commit a SEWoG not related to the MI, their adjusted score is reduced by the amount of damage it caused to them. The only way in which timing is involved is that 1) the damage occurs after the MI was given, and 2) the SEWoG occurs after the MI was given. The relative timing between the SEWoG and the damage is irrelevant. If the SEWoG is related to the MI, then the SEWoG is irrelevant. If the SEWoG caused no damage, then the SEWoG is irrelevant. What might have happened if the SEWoG had been committed without the MI is irrelevant. What is relevant? This: 1) was there an infraction? 2) did it cause damage? 3) was there a SEWoG subsequent to the infraction and related to it? 4) did the SEWoG cause additional damage?

[campboy]

I think the source of the disagreement is this. The damage can be broken up into three parts (some of which may be empty): that which is caused by the infraction and independent of the SEWoG, that which is caused by the SEWoG and independent of the infraction, and that which is caused by both. I would only give redress to the first, and I think that is consistent both with the wording of the law and what normally happens. Say there is a wild double of an illegally-reached contract. There is no damage caused only by the SEWoG, since the SEWoG could not have happened without the infraction. Yet we deny redress for the damage which was caused by both.

[campboy]

The laws say that when MI has been given, and damage occurs, the score should be adjusted. There is one caveat: if the NOS subsequently commit a SEWoG not related to the MI, their adjusted score is reduced by the amount of damage it caused to them.

This is not the case. A serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction to deny redress, but a wild or gambling action does not (and, normally, is not).

[blackshoe]

Campboy, you seem to be saying the same thing I said. B-)

[iviehoff]

I think the source of the disagreement is this. The damage can be broken up into three parts (some of which may be empty): that which is caused by the infraction and independent of the SEWoG, that which is caused by the SEWoG and independent of the infraction, and that which is caused by both. I would only give redress to the first, and I think that is consistent both with the wording of the law and what normally happens. Say there is a wild double of an illegally-reached contract. There is no damage caused only by the SEWoG, since the SEWoG could not have happened without the infraction. Yet we deny redress for the damage which was caused by both.

OK. That is at least a consistent argument, on a particular defensible interpretation of the law, and lays clear the nature of the disagreement. Though if that is your view of the law you should refuse to give redress rather than apply your formula.

 

If this is the law, then I think it is bad law. Damage occurs at the moment when you rely on MI, not at the point when it is given. Apparently the law will choose either to protect you from that damage, or not protect you from it, according to what might have happened between the point when the MI is given, and the point when you rely on it. You can however obtain protection (subject to any subsequent SEWOG) if you ensure that the information is fresh when you rely on it. That seems to suggest that a player, to ensure the protection from the damage of MI, should ask for a restatement of any information on which he will rely at every moment at which he will use it, which would be very tedious in practice. The law would be improved in its consistency if MI were deemed to have been given at the moment of relying on it, and not just at the original time of stating it.

 

There is a sort-of logic to it. If we think of SEWOGs as being such terrible doings they really are an indication that the player is no longer playing bridge in good faith, which some people would argue is the correct interpretation, then probably the director can say "when you play like this I no longer protect you". Unfortunately plenty of directors think SEWOGs are plays that are merely demonstrably sub-optimal.

[barmar]

There is a sort-of logic to it. If we think of SEWOGs as being such terrible doings they really are an indication that the player is no longer playing bridge in good faith, which some people would argue is the correct interpretation, then probably the director can say "when you play like this I no longer protect you". Unfortunately plenty of directors think SEWOGs are plays that are merely demonstrably sub-optimal.

I think the lawmakers meant "play like an idiot", but didn't feel such language would be appropriate.