[jillybean]

Old York, on Apr 14 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

What was the "par" contract on this hand and were you actually damaged?
If 5♠ is making (undeserved) then I would expect 4♠+1 or 3NT+2 at all other tables

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI helping the ops find a contract that they otherwise may not have found.

[Lobowolf]

jillybean2, on Apr 8 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

This does not seem entirely right to me. If a player gives his partner UI that demonstrably suggests a certain action, then if there are no LA’s the player is free to use that action? The benefit of doubt seems to be in favor of the offending side rather than the non-offenders.

The absense of logical alternatives sort of removes the "doubt" to give you the benefit of. Example:

Let's say 4th seat gets to the table later than everyone else, so is sorting his hand, and the auction goes: P-P-P. Now his partner says something, "Oh my God, I didn't mean to pass."

4th seat then opens an 11-count with 4-spades, and says, "I always open when I have 15 Pearson points (HCP + # of spades)." Not everyone opens all 11-counts with 4 spades; there's doubt, and the UI suggested a logical alternative -- pass. So if the Non-Offending Side is damaged by the fact that pass was not chosen, they're entitled to protection.

Same situation, same comment, but now 4th seat has a 13 HCP hand with 5-1-3-4 distribution, and opens a spade. Not really a logical alternative to opening a spade, so when he does so, there's not really any "doubt" to give the opponents the benefit of. If they get to a good contract and make it, they're entitled (assuming that 4th seat's subsequent bids are above reproach, as well).

[Lobowolf]

jillybean2, on Apr 14 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, on Apr 15 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 14 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

No it isn't.

Law 16B1 said:

... Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred...

The actual and expected results at the table where the infraction occurred have absolutely nothing to do with what happened at other tables, and everything to do with the lie of the cards in the four hands and the level of expertise of the players at this table.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on Apr 15 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Apr 15 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 14 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

No it isn't.

Law 16B1 said:

... Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred...

The actual and expected results at the table where the infraction occurred have absolutely nothing to do with what happened at other tables, and everything to do with the lie of the cards in the four hands and the level of expertise of the players at this table.

I didn't say that the actual or the expected result have anything to do with what happens at the other tables; I said that the determination of whether there was damage does. As you yourself pointed out (check back one page):

Quote

"If 5♠ "scores a big fat zero", there was no damage, and shall be no score adjustment. "

Results score "big fat zeroes" when compared to the other tables.

[blackshoe]

If the best likely table result "scores a big fat zero" at matchpoints, then it is hardly important that a worse table result was obtained, and that's what I meant when I said that. However, just to be precise, it is not the matchpoint or IMP result to which Law 16B1 refers, it is the aggregate table score according to Law 77 which is germane.

Put it another way. If you were destined to get a zero at matchpoints because you were damaged, and the score adjustment still gives you a zero, that's just too bad.

You may now, if you like, point your finger at me, jump up and down, and yell "Nyah, nyah, nyah! You were wrong!"

[blackshoe]

Addendum: the actual table result in the presence of an infraction, and the expected table result had there been no infraction, are certainly germane to the question whether there was damage - they in fact define whether there was damage.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on Apr 15 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

You may now, if you like, point your finger at me, jump up and down, and yell "Nyah, nyah, nyah! You were wrong!"

I would only do that if it didn't mean I was wrong, too. That'll teach me to make up my own definition of "Damage."

I have to confess, though, I wouldn't adjust a -620 to a -170 in a pair game if everyone else with the same cards was -800.

[jillybean]

Ive seen some determine damage by checking other tables and if the ops did not obtain a good result in comparrison - you were not damaged.

[peachy]

Lobowolf, on Apr 15 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 15 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

You may now, if you like, point your finger at me, jump up and down, and yell "Nyah, nyah, nyah! You were wrong!"

I would only do that if it didn't mean I was wrong, too. That'll teach me to make up my own definition of "Damage."

I have to confess, though, I wouldn't adjust a -620 to a -170 in a pair game if everyone else with the same cards was -800.

TD must not use the table results from other tables as any sort of basis for a ruling. That is plain wrong.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Apr 15 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

Ive seen some determine damage by checking other tables and if the ops did not obtain a good result in comparrison - you were not damaged.

That is clearly director error, and should be corrected. Preferably with a two by four.

[Lobowolf]

peachy, on Apr 16 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

TD must not use the table results from other tables as any sort of basis for a ruling. That is plain wrong.

ok, but unless the revised laws book contains a definition of "damage" (the previous one did not), my intuitive sense of the term is that a pair that got a 100% board was not "damaged."

[Old York]

I totally understand JB's frustration over this infraction of the rules, and understand why she feels she was damaged by it, but I still can see no logical bridge reason for opener to bid again over 5♠

I did not mean to imply that the results at other tables should influence the decision director made, only to confirm whether damage was "actual" or "imagined"

We are all with jilly on this one

Tony

[FrancesHinden]

I think there's a lot of quibbling going on here when we are all basically agreed.

i) If you already have a 100% matchpoint result, the TD may decide not to bother adjusting in your faviour (or the non-offending side may not bother asking for a ruling). It is however good practice to adjust anyway, because it educates the pairs concerned about the Laws, so next time, when there is an adjustment, they aren't confused about "inconsistent" application of the laws.

ii) If you are in weighted adjustment land, you will need to calculate the matchpoints for each of the components of your putative weighted adjusted score, take the weighted average, and see if that is more or fewer matchpoints that the original score, before knowing if there was damage or not and hence if you are going to adjust or not (if this confuses anyone I can give an example).

[olegru]

Old York, on Apr 16 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

but I still can see no logical bridge reason for opener to bid again over 5♠

Hi Tony,

After receiving UI opener made 2 bids, not one and his first bid easily could have LA. If it is the case absence of logical bridge reason to bid over 5♠ could be irrelevant, because we do not know if 5♠ bid would be made without UI.

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 16 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

ii) If you are in weighted adjustment land, you will need to calculate the matchpoints for each of the components of your putative weighted adjusted score, take the weighted average, and see if that is more or fewer matchpoints that the original score, before knowing if there was damage or not and hence if you are going to adjust or not (if this confuses anyone I can give an example).

Are you sure, Frances? It seems to me that procedure contravenes what I said earlier, and also contravenes the examples in the White Book. But maybe there's something else of which I"m not aware.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Apr 16 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Apr 16 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

ii) If you are in weighted adjustment land, you will need to calculate the matchpoints for each of the components of your putative weighted adjusted score, take the weighted average, and see if that is more or fewer matchpoints that the original score, before knowing if there was damage or not and hence if you are going to adjust or not (if this confuses anyone I can give an example).

Are you sure, Frances? It seems to me that procedure contravenes what I said earlier, and also contravenes the examples in the White Book. But maybe there's something else of which I"m not aware.

I don't think it contravenes the examples in the white book at all - are we talking at cross purposes?

Clearly if you are giving a weighted score at matchpoints, we have to calculate the matchpoints for each component, and then weight these; it is obviously crazy to calculate a weighted score and then matchpoint it (if it's not yet obvious, consider 75% of +650 and 25% of +680 when the rest of the traveller is flat in +650).

Having done all of this, and found out what our proposed matchpoint ruling is, it seems obvious common sense to me* that we don't give the ruling at all, if the resulting matchpoint score is worse than the original one.

Forgetting the weighted score part of it for a minute, suppose a pair defend 4H and take it one off. They claim that without MI, they would have bid 4S. The TD agrees that there was MI, but looks at the hands and observes that 4S has four inescapable losers. He won't give a ruling, but will keep the table result. The same will be true with a weighted adjustment, it's just that you can't tell if the weighted adjustment is going to be better or worse than the table result until you calculate its matchpoints.

*it's always worrying saying "obvious common sense"

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Apr 16 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

peachy, on Apr 16 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

TD must not use the table results from other tables as any sort of basis for a ruling. That is plain wrong.

ok, but unless the revised laws book contains a definition of "damage" (the previous one did not), my intuitive sense of the term is that a pair that got a 100% board was not "damaged."

If the table result with and without the infraction results in the same matchpoint score, it just means that the damage was inconsequential, but the damage might still be there.

However, I think it's still wrong for the TD to use this in his ruling. What if one of the other boards later has a scoring correction? E.g. suppose the infraction causes you to get +400, where you would have gotten +500 without it, that's 100 points of damage, but they could both be cold tops so it doesn't seem to matter. Then a board is corrected, and some other pair has a +420, now the infraction causes you to lose a matchpoint.

Also, rulings generally need to be made in a reasonable amount of time. Allowing other table results to influence the ruling implies that you have to wait until the end of the session, unless it's a barometer game.

[blackshoe]

What I was thinking is that the determination of damage, per the laws, has nothing to do with matchpoints or imps - it has to do solely with the scoring table in Law 77. Or so it seems to me. The laws then, given damage, require the TD to adjust the score, but that's a separate issue.

If the expected aggregate score that might have been obtained by the NOS absent the infraction is worse than the actual score, then there is no damage. That's your example case. If, however, there is damage, you should adjust the score. I suppose it is possible that in computing a weighted score, one might arrive at a result which either does not affect the final matchpoint (or IMP) score or even makes it worse for the NOS, but coming from a "no weighted scores" jurisdiction, I can't think of an example. Perhaps you have one or two? In any case, I can understand not wanting to adjust if the end result doesn't help the NOS, but I'm not sure the law as written permits the TD to do that. I do need to think on this further - the thought that I might feel required by the law to give a score adjustment that actually worsens the NOS's final result bothers me - and I'm sure doing so would bother the players!