[fyrish]

Scoring: IMP

---

South opened 1♦, West Doubled and North raised to 2♦. East passed and South bid 3♦. West paused before passing and East bid 3♥ which West raised to 4♥. West's hesitation was agreed by EW.

4♥ made on poor defence and the director was called. What should the ruling be?

[helene_t]

I think pass is a logical alternative for East. Adjusting to 3♦= or 3♦-1 I suppose (haven't analyzed the play in 3♦)

West's pass is really weird.

[Hanoi5]

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

[ArtK78]

Quite frankly, I can't imagine East letting his opponents play in 3♦ after a takeout double at the one level by his partner. So, I am not convinced that I would take away the result of 4♥ making.

If this is IMPs, as the conditions seem to indicate, a split ruling is not practical.

[kgr]

Hanoi5, on Jan 8 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

ArtK78 said:

Quite frankly, I can't imagine East letting his opponents play in 3♦ after a takeout double at the one level by his partner. So, I am not convinced that I would take away the result of 4♥ making.
If this is IMPs, as the conditions seem to indicate, a split ruling is not practical.

I don't understand giving a split ruling here. Either you decide that Pass was not a logical alternative for 3♥ and you let the result stand; Or you decide that Pass was a logical alternative for 3♥ and then 3♥ should be taken away and you give the likely result for playing 3♦ by S.
...How can you say that 3♥ should not have been bid, but then still say that because the defence was bad you give the result of 4♥= to EW? If 3♥ didn't exist then there is no (bad) defence against 4♥.

[Echognome]

Would do the Walmart rollback to 3♦ based on the information above.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on Jan 8 2009, 07:37 AM, said:

I'd give E/W whatever 3♦ would receive but I'm not sure what I'd give N/S, probably an average as they let E/W make 4♥, I don't want to reward them for bad play.

Can't do that, it's illegal. Unless the play was considerably worse than just "bad". Also, you can't give "average" as part of an assigned adjusted score, which is awarded when a result was obtained at the table.

You can't weight scores (50% of 3♦ making, 50% of some other contract, for example) in the ACBL, either.

East has UI from West's pause before passing 3♦, and it seems to me pass is a logical alternative for East. NS were damaged (they got a worse score than they would have had the irregularity not occurred). I would therefore rule illegal use of UI, and award an assigned adjusted score. Now, in awarding such a score we give the NOS the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. That appears to me to be 3♦+1. We give the OS the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which for them appears to be the same thing. So I would award +130 to NS and -130 to EW. If I were to be convinced that making four ♦ is not likely, I would award +110 to NS, and still -130 to EW.

I don't know if this qualifies as a "Walmart rollback", since I don't know what that is.

[peachy]

East has UI from West and the UI message is clear = West has extra values. Pass by East is a LA because he is not allowed to use the knowledge that West has extras. The contract should be ruled to be 3D making at least three, for both sides. Whatever happened at defending 4H is irrelevant because the 3H bid will be cancelled because it is illegal.

[fyrish]

This was a teams competition. The ruling given was that EW got -110 (3♦ making) but NS got -620 as they were not damaged by the bidding but by their own "inferior" play. The score for EW seems fairly straightforward but I thought the NS score was unusual. How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

[Gerben42]

Quote

How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

Irrational, wild or gambling (according to the laws).

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on Jan 9 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

Quote

How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

Irrational, wild or gambling (according to the laws).

This changed slightly in the new Laws to

"( 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."

The way this is implemented is quite complex. Assuming I've understood it right, you do the following:

- Decide if the defence to 4H was so bad as to be a "serious error" or wild, or gambling.
- If not, award a contract of 3D both ways (making some number of tricks as you determine)
- If so, award EW -110 (or -130 or whatever)
- Work out the consequence of the "serious error" which converted +100 from 4H to -620. If the result in the other room was, say, -100 in 4H then that is, say, 13 imps (I don't know the imp table off by heart)
- NS's imp result on the board is then equal to {imps from making 3D} - {imps caused by their own error}
- This probably comes to the same result as awaring NS -620, but it's conceptually different.

At least, this is how the EBL (and the EBU) understand this law.

[fyrish]

"( 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."


This Law does seem to explain the ruling. However it does seem a bit harsh that NS have to defend against a contract that the opps weren't able to bid properly.

[Gerben42]

To clarify the "Law" a bit more, another example:

West North East South

2♥* 2♠ 3♥ 3♠
4♥ 4♠ Pass Pass
Dbl Rdbl Pass Pass
Pass

2♥ was asked and explained as a weak 2. The real agreement was intermediate and a 2-suiter. Opener then bid twice voluntarily to try and compensate for partner. 4♠ went down 2 (redoubled) and the director was called.

Since the Rdbl was considered "silly" the table result was set to 4♠ undoubled down 2 (it was ruled that 4♠ would be reached if opener passed on his 2nd and 3rd turn), NS -100. The "other table" makes 4♥, NS -420 (in fact this was an MP event but let's assume it's IMPs (also guessing the IMP table )

Table score: NS lose 180: -5 IMPs.
Director score: NS win 320: +8 IMPs.
Had NS not redoubled: NS lose 120: +3 IMPs.

So the 8 IMPs between -5 and +3 are still deducted from NS's score for being silly, making the final result:

NS side get +8 - 8 = 0 IMPs
EW side get -8 IMPs

Similarly at MP, let's assume that

-100 gives NS 70 of 100 MP
-300 gives NS 30 of 100 MP
-600 gives NS 0 of 100 MP (obviously)

In this case they get 70 - 30 = 40 MP, and EW get 100 - 70 = 30 MP.
For the rest of the field, the board will be scored as NS -100 (have fun, scoring program writers!).

[Codo]

In the given case, when does a defence is so bad that it will influence the ruling?

Lets say, south lead a spade, not unreasonable because a minor can blow a trick.
Declarer takes a finesse with the ten and now has 4 Spade tricks for a club discard.
He draws one round of trump, seeing the split and play a spade. North ruffs. Is this a serious mistake?
He reaches partner in diamond and get a second ruff. He tries to reach partner in a minor, but no success. This is a defence that allows 4 Heart to make. You can call it a bad defence, but is it a serious error?

What if North does not ruff a spade at once but later? Is that bad?

Would it be bad enough for a serious mistake not to split honours when a small club is lead towards dummy? After all , when I play the queen, declarer may set up a club for a discard anyway and ducking may give him some problems.

I think I would score -110 or -130 for both sides when the error was not as bad as ruffing a winner or blowing another obvious trick, But what do I know where the borderline for a serious mistake is.

[MFA]

Gerben42, on Jan 9 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

To clarify the "Law" a bit more, another example:

West North East South

2♥* 2♠ 3♥ 3♠
4♥ 4♠ Pass Pass
Dbl Rdbl Pass Pass
Pass

2♥ was asked and explained as a weak 2. The real agreement was intermediate and a 2-suiter. Opener then bid twice voluntarily to try and compensate for partner. 4♠ went down 2 (redoubled) and the director was called.

Since the Rdbl was considered "silly" the table result was set to 4♠ undoubled down 2 (it was ruled that 4♠ would be reached if opener passed on his 2nd and 3rd turn), NS -100. The "other table" makes 4♥, NS -420 (in fact this was an MP event but let's assume it's IMPs (also guessing the IMP table )

Table score: NS lose 180: -5 IMPs.
Director score: NS win 320: +8 IMPs.
Had NS not redoubled: NS lose 120: +3 IMPs.

So the 8 IMPs between -5 and +3 are still deducted from NS's score for being silly, making the final result:

NS side get +8 - 8 = 0 IMPs
EW side get -8 IMPs

Similarly at MP, let's assume that

-100 gives NS 70 of 100 MP
-300 gives NS 30 of 100 MP
-600 gives NS 0 of 100 MP (obviously)

In this case they get 70 - 30 = 40 MP, and EW get 100 - 70 = 30 MP.
For the rest of the field, the board will be scored as NS -100 (have fun, scoring program writers!).

Are you sure that this method is correct?
I have never heard before about a situation, where you don't establish a table result before any imps or mps are calculated.
The table result might be X for NS and Y for EW. Or 60% X and 40% Y. Etc. But it is a table result as such.

[FrancesHinden]

see

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=3750

for more on this topic

[MFA]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

see

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=3750

for more on this topic

Thanks, nice link!

[JoAnneM]

I think the -620 should not even be considered in the equation. For one thing when you have a situation with a "director call/damage assessment" the NOS might be a little "unhinged" by the whole thing and not up to their best defense, and why penalize them for doing badly something they shouldn't even be doing? It just doesn't make sense.

The score should be rolled back to 3D, making whatever the director determines.

[peachy]

fyrish, on Jan 9 2009, 03:10 AM, said:

This was a teams competition. The ruling given was that EW got -110 (3♦ making) but NS got -620 as they were not damaged by the bidding but by their own "inferior" play. The score for EW seems fairly straightforward but I thought the NS score was unusual. How bad does your defence have to be before you get a ruling like this?

To say they were not damaged by the bidding makes no sense. They *were* damaged because they should not have been defending 4H.
When East passes (he was the last to pass) the contract would be 3D. When East bids 3H, and the 3H bid is ruled illegal (using UI) the contract becomes 3D. There is no path to 4H after the 3H bid is cancelled and all considerations as to what score to be assigned, are based on the contract being 3D.

This case cannot consider "how bad the defense was" against an illegal contract. After the infraction during the auction is remedied, the subsequent illegal call(s) cease to exist. They are certainly not reinstated for the purpose of penalizing the NOS for their bad defense.

[Fluffy]

I remember having to keep my score for defending against a game that was bid thx to a long tank but wasn't making. I found it kinda unfair.

I agree with joanne that when this thins arise, you are not in your best mood for defending perfectly. IMO the defending error should be blatant for the result to stay.