[szgyula]

Dear All,

As 2017 is coming, I would like to present a simplified example and ask for opinions. The question is not what should be ruled using the 2007 rules. I am more interested in the common sense )or lack thereof):

IMP pairs. Normal board result is 2NT= by North. Both the contract and the number of tricks is "obvious". Now consider two tables:

Table 1: One defender revokes and the result is 2NT+1.

Table 2: A contract of 3NT is reached through a clear infraction BUT the one defender (NOS) revokes and the table result is 3NT=.

The infraction is very clear and the TD adjusts accordingly to 2NT. Lets compare what the score of EW should be:

At table 1, there is no infraction (beyond the revoke but that is already taken care of) so table result stands. The consequence of the revoke is 1 overtrick, around 1IMP.

At table 2, there is an adjusted score for the infraction. The TD starts for the NOS from the 2NT contract but there is a correction for the revoke (SEWoG). The "price" of the revoke is the difference between 3NT= and 3NT-1, e.g. 650 total points or ~12IMP.

To state the obvious: Exact same hand, exact same revoke. Due to an infraction, the "cost" of the revoke is 12IMP instead of 1IMP. This does not seem fair to the NOS. I understand that a revoke is more serious in IMP if it gives an overtrick but not a game but still. Is it not too harsh?

Repeat: This is not about the application of the rules. It is about the implications of the rule.

[lamford]

szgyula, on 2016-January-14, 11:38, said:

At table 2, there is an adjusted score for the infraction. The TD starts for the NOS from the 2NT contract but there is a correction for the revoke (SEWoG). The "price" of the revoke is the difference between 3NT= and 3NT-1, e.g. 650 total points or ~12IMP.

No, the contract is changed to 2NT at table 2, and the revoke only costs the overtrick. They only fail to get redress for the serious error, but that only costs the difference between 2NT= and 2NT+1. So, it is 2NT= for the offenders and 2NT+1 for the revokers.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2016-January-14, 11:58, said:

No, the contract is changed to 2NT at table 2, and the revoke only costs the overtrick. They only fail to get redress for the serious error, but that only costs the difference between 2NT= and 2NT+1. So, it is 2NT= for the offenders and 2NT+1 for the revokers.

That's an interesting idea, but the offenders' penalty is getting their contract rolled back. The revoke still accrues to them. Although there are those who wish that this were not the case.

[szgyula]

Quote from the White Book:

"4.1.3.1 General
Consider a case (with only N/S vulnerable) where N/S allow 4H doubled to be played by E/W because they were misinformed, and the TD judges that if they had not been misinformed they would have bid and made 4S+2. Suppose that 4H doubled is always 3 down except that N/S commit a serious error (e.g. a revoke) and the result is only 2 down. Let us say that the result in the other room was N/S +680. How do we apply Law 12?

E/W, the offending side, get the score for N/S +680 (0 IMPs) under Law 12C1 ©.
Applying Law 12C1 (b) to the non-offending side, we have to calculate the part of the damage that was self-inflicted. The self-inflicted damage is the difference in score between N/S +500 and N/S +300 = imp(500 - 680) - imp(300 - 680) = -5 - (-9) = 4 IMPs. So do N/S get the adjustment for the offending side less the self-inflicted damage = -4 IMPs? Yes, because this is better than their score at the table"

So the self inflicted damage is calculated based on the contract they actually played, not the one they should have played. Thus, the damage due to the revoke is calculated in the 3NT contract, not the 2NT. For the NOS, that's it. OS gets 2NT+1.

[axman]

szgyula, on 2016-January-14, 11:38, said:

Dear All,

As 2017 is coming, I would like to present a simplified example and ask for opinions. The question is not what should be ruled using the 2007 rules. I am more interested in the common sense )or lack thereof):

IMP pairs. Normal board result is 2NT= by North. Both the contract and the number of tricks is "obvious". Now consider two tables:

Table 1: One defender revokes and the result is 2NT+1.

Table 2: A contract of 3NT is reached through a clear infraction BUT the one defender (NOS) revokes and the table result is 3NT=.

The infraction is very clear and the TD adjusts accordingly to 2NT. Lets compare what the score of EW should be:

At table 1, there is no infraction (beyond the revoke but that is already taken care of) so table result stands. The consequence of the revoke is 1 overtrick, around 1IMP.

At table 2, there is an adjusted score for the infraction. The TD starts for the NOS from the 2NT contract but there is a correction for the revoke (SEWoG). The "price" of the revoke is the difference between 3NT= and 3NT-1, e.g. 650 total points or ~12IMP.

To state the obvious: Exact same hand, exact same revoke. Due to an infraction, the "cost" of the revoke is 12IMP instead of 1IMP. This does not seem fair to the NOS. I understand that a revoke is more serious in IMP if it gives an overtrick but not a game but still. Is it not too harsh?

Repeat: This is not about the application of the rules. It is about the implications of the rule.

What if at the point of 3N-P-P-P the game is interrupted and the putative defenders are told away from the table that 2N is a normal contract, it makes 8 tricks easily- but not 9, and that 3N would be viewed as an UI infraction- and they have the opportunity now, and only now, to protest the infraction (adjust the contract to 2N or leave it at 3N).**

** I know which I would select <g>

What I am attempting to demonstrate here is that the infraction (rather than the defender) broke the "connection to damage".

From a procedural point of view it does not work to stop play and interject extraneous information, however, it is not too far to reach that once play is over to 'visualize walking in those same footsteps'.

And what I suggest is adopting the principle that events that are connected remained connected until the connection is broken; and its corollary- a connection between events that has been broken remains broken.

[szgyula]

axman, on 2016-January-14, 14:30, said:

And what I suggest is adopting the principle that events that are connected remained connected until the connection is broken; and its corollary- a connection between events that has been broken remains broken.

This is straight out of the Kaplan article and I fully agree. You make a mistake that is not connected to the infraction and you "pay for it". My question is "how much do you pay"? Why does the price of a mistake go through the roof because of an infraction?

[Vampyr]

I find that quote from the WB pretty confusing, but anyway the revokers do not get the score for letting through 3NT.

[szgyula]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-14, 16:53, said:

I find that quote from the WB pretty confusing, but anyway the revokers do not get the score for letting through 3NT.

The WB example says the following:

The "without infraction" result would have been 4S+2. Thus, this is the result what the OS gets.

This would be the adjusted result of NOS without the revoke. As they revoked (unrelated serious error), they get "penalized" for the revoke. How much did the revoke cost in the illegally reached 4H contract? This was teams and the other room table score was 4s+2, 680 total points. In this room, the table result with revoke is 300, thus, board is -9IMP. Without the revoke, the result (4Hx-3 vs. 4s+2, i.e. 500 vs. 680) would have been -180 net, i.e. -5IMP. The "self inflicted" damage is the difference of -9IMP and -5 IMP, i.e. 4 IMP. The final result for the board is 0IMP (4S+2 in both rooms) reduced by the self inflicted damage, 4IMP. To put it simply: the self inflicted damage is calculated in the illegally reached contract.

Overall, the board result is 0IMP for the OS and -4IMP for the NOS (split score).

Confusing? Yes. Fair? This is the question. In the WB case you compare apples and oranges (4S by NS vs. 4H by EW) so you can not really determine what the revoke means. In my example it is much simpler. Same contract (NT). Same play. Same revoke. At Table 1 it is an overtrick, at Table 2 it is the 9th trick to make the game. Cost of the revoke is 1IMP vs. 12IMP. Only difference is an infraction by the OS. Is it fair to the NOS? I do not think so. Still, that is the rule.

[Zelandakh]

The cost of an error on the making trick is always higher than any other even without complicating matters by using 2 different infractions. Take a hand that makes an obvious 12 tricks. At one table there is a revoke allowing a 13th trick to be made. If the contract at this table is 6NT this costs an overtrick, if 7NT it costs considerably more. This is also true of a simple mistake rather than a revoke. I am not sure why this is a strange concept as it is fundamentally what bridge scoring is based on!

[szgyula]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-15, 08:15, said:

The cost of an error on the making trick is always higher than any other even without complicating matters by using 2 different infractions. Take a hand that makes an obvious 12 tricks. At one table there is a revoke allowing a 13th trick to be made. If the contract at this table is 6NT this costs an overtrick, if 7NT it costs considerably more. This is also true of a simple mistake rather than a revoke. I am not sure why this is a strange concept as it is fundamentally what bridge scoring is based on!

Correct but if 7NT was reached through an infraction, than the 13th trick suddenly becomes very expensive. This is not exactly fair to the players that did not commit the infraction that led to the 7NT. One can just as well argue (I know that this is not how it is done) that the contract is rolled back to 6NT, the NOS still revokes (SEWoG) so the result should be 6NT+1. This is not fair either but fair should be somewhere between, IMO. I know that it is not.

I think this goes back to the argument that if the NOS is in a much harder situation than players at other tables, this should be taken into account. For a revoke, it is not. The field is not quite level.

A simple mistake in an illegally reached 7NT is not relevant as the result is rolled back to 6NT+1 since it is not a SEWoG.

[nige1]

Daft rules (e.g. SEWOG) produce results that players deem unfair.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2016-January-15, 19:14, said:

Daft rules (e.g. SEWOG) produce results that players deem unfair.

Well, I am not convinced by this whole thing. I wish Gordon or Robin would confirm or deny that the NOS are forced to keep a score from an illegal contract.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-15, 20:45, said:

Well, I am not convinced by this whole thing. I wish Gordon or Robin would confirm or deny that the NOS are forced to keep a score from an illegal contract.

I would certainly not express it in those terms.

If, without your serious error or wild or gambling action, you were going to get a good score in the opponents "illegal" contract but through your subsequent SE/WoG action you get a bad score, then you get to keep the bad score. The law says you deserve that bad score because you made a serious error or because you gambled to try to increase your advantage from the opponent's infraction in a way that the laws do not approve.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2016-January-16, 05:22, said:

I would certainly not express it in those terms.

If, without your serious error or wild or gambling action, you were going to get a good score in the opponents "illegal" contract but through your subsequent SE/WoG action you get a bad score, then you get to keep the bad score. The law says you deserve that bad score because you made a serious error or because you gambled to try to increase your advantage from the opponent's infraction in a way that the laws do not approve.

WB 8.12.5.3 states (under serious error):
An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

So, if -10 IMPs is "especially lenient", one wonders what a draconian punishment would be; "expulsion from the event"?

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2016-January-16, 06:56, said:

WB 8.12.5.3 states (under serious error):
An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

So, if -10 IMPs is "especially lenient", one wonders what a draconian punishment would be; "expulsion from the event"?

"should be treated especially leniently" = "is not a serious error", so where would the -10 IMPs come from?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-January-16, 06:56, said:

WB 8.12.5.3 states (under serious error):
An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

So, if -10 IMPs is "especially lenient", one wonders what a draconian punishment would be; "expulsion from the event"?

Isn't this just the old "you still have to play bridge" idea? Just because the opponents reached the contract illegally doesn't mean you can stop trying to beat it.

They don't get to keep their good result, but if you got a bad result due to your own mistake, you're stuck with it.

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2016-January-16, 15:30, said:

Isn't this just the old "you still have to play bridge" idea? Just because the opponents reached the contract illegally doesn't mean you can stop trying to beat it.

They don't get to keep their good result, but if you got a bad result due to your own mistake, you're stuck with it.

Yes, but that is not the issue I am raising. I fully agree that you still have to play bridge in an illegally reached contract. The question is if you have to play BETTER bridge than others because your opponents reached a contract illegally...

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-January-16, 15:30, said:

Isn't this just the old "you still have to play bridge" idea? Just because the opponents reached the contract illegally doesn't mean you can stop trying to beat it.

That is the concept. But it is a ludicrous one. The contract is going to be changed anyway, so the play in the illegal contract should be irrelevant. Perhaps we should take into account a serious error when four people play a board that has been fouled "just for fun", when they have already been awarded average+ each.

[Zelandakh]

szgyula, on 2016-January-17, 04:18, said:

Yes, but that is not the issue I am raising. I fully agree that you still have to play bridge in an illegally reached contract. The question is if you have to play BETTER bridge than others because your opponents reached a contract illegally...

How is not revoking in 7NT playing better bridge than not revoking in 6NT?

[szgyula]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-17, 09:14, said:

How is not revoking in 7NT playing better bridge than not revoking in 6NT?

If you revoke in 6NT (all other tables), you loose 1IMP. In 7NT the revoke is 20 IMP. Does not seem to be fair to me if 7NT is an illegal contract and you are going to roll back to 6NT for the OS. Calculating the price of the revoke in an illegal contract and THAN rolling back to 6NT does not seem to restore balance. It is too harsh for my taste. YMMW.