[szgyula]

lamford, on 2016-January-17, 06:55, said:

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.

Actually this could have happened to us. Opponent wanted to look at my hand after we finished the board. He did not notice that we swapped boards so he looked at my hand for an unplayed board. We were ordered to play the board with the condition that if we get better than 3IMP, we keep it (teams). Otherwise we get 3IMP. I know this is "strange" from the TD but this is what he decided. Now lets assume we score something really bad. How would you rule? Would you invoke SEWoG in this situation? At one point you should. E.g. 1N-p-3N-P bid with 15-17 opening and 6 points, 3244 distribution by responder. This is clear gambling. You know you do not have game. You know you have 3IMP in your pocket. You try something insane...

[Vampyr]

I think that the revoke law is much too soft, but I am shocked and disappointed that the EBU would ever require a pair to keep a score obtained in an illegal contract. I agree with the OP that receiving a hugely increased penalty based on the opponents having committed and infraction is ludicrous.

I suppose that the right thing to do is to assume that the revoke was not unconnected to the infraction since the (original!) NOS were flustered, distracted and upset.

[barmar]

szgyula, on 2016-January-17, 15:10, said:

If you revoke in 6NT (all other tables), you loose 1IMP. In 7NT the revoke is 20 IMP.

It's still the same revoke. The impact of the error doesn't equate to how "well" you have to play.

This is not the same as planning a different defense based on the contract (you have to defend differently to beat 6NT versus 7NT).

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2016-January-17, 20:55, said:

It's still the same revoke. The impact of the error doesn't equate to how "well" you have to play.

This is not the same as planning a different defense based on the contract (you have to defend differently to beat 6NT versus 7NT).

I fully agree here. On the other hand, it does not seem to be right to me to punish the revoke by 20IMP instead of 1 because the opponents reached illegally a contract. This is only my opinion only, but still:

Your final result in an event is a score assigned to your performance. In IMP, you start with zero and you are "punished" for mistakes and you are "rewarded" for good performance on each board. Each mistake has some price assigned to it. Not bidding a game has a high price, giving an overtrick has a low price. The revoke has a variable price, depending on the contract. The question here is if you allow an illegal action to change this price of a mistake for the NOS. You obviously think it should be allowed, end of story. I would be more in favor of some middle ground. I fully agree that a revoke in a clinch is more serious than in a boring contract. Thus, I fully agree that the price should be higher for a revoke that gives the 13th trick, even in an illegally reach 7NT. I just do not happen to think it should be the same "penalty" you assign to a revoke in a legally reached 7NT. I may be too much of a mathematician but I would prefer to have the same expectation value (price) assigned to a mistake on each board. This is not possible, of course, but I would like to get as close as possible.

This is obviously a can of worms: Kaplan is right, the connection between the revoke the the illegal 7NT is broken. You can not ignore the revoke and there must be a penalty. Full agreement on this one. On the other hand, the -20IMP is the effect of the illegal 7NT and the revoke, combined. There are two, unrelated events that contribute. The connection between the two events is broken. The connection between the damage and the two mistakes (illegal 7NT and revoke) is clearly not. The effect should still be split somehow between the two. I know this is not easily achieved...

I think we said everything that could be said. We should just agree to disagree. I see your point, I accept it, I would just prefer to live in a different word. Since 2017 is coming, this is the right time to do this...

[barmar]

szgyula, on 2016-January-18, 06:38, said:

I fully agree here. On the other hand, it does not seem to be right to me to punish the revoke by 20IMP instead of 1 because the opponents reached illegally a contract. This is only my opinion only, but still:

Your final result in an event is a score assigned to your performance. In IMP, you start with zero and you are "punished" for mistakes and you are "rewarded" for good performance on each board. Each mistake has some price assigned to it. Not bidding a game has a high price, giving an overtrick has a low price. The revoke has a variable price, depending on the contract.

The same thing is true of ordinary misdefense, forget about irregularities. If good defense holds the opponents to 8 tricks, while poor defense allows them to make 9 tricks, the punishment for making poor defense depends on whether they bid 2NT (1 IMP) or 3NT (8 or 10 IMPs).

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2016-January-18, 11:48, said:

The same thing is true of ordinary misdefense, forget about irregularities. If good defense holds the opponents to 8 tricks, while poor defense allows them to make 9 tricks, the punishment for making poor defense depends on whether they bid 2NT (1 IMP) or 3NT (8 or 10 IMPs).

That is an absolutely valid point. This is one of the reasons a mixed (very good players to beginners) pairs event will not tell you which is the best pair, especially in IMP. The disagreement is over the importance of the irregularity. Some people take the position that the irregularity is part of the game just like rare stupid mistakes by the opponents that you benefit from. Others believe that irregularities must lead to rectification. This is a matter of opinion and personal preference. It is clear that in certain cases (SEWoG) the laws agree with the former approach. May be a more balanced approach might be eventually entertained. May be not.

[blackshoe]

"Irregularities must lead to rectification" is an overbid.

Quote

Law 84: Rulings On Agreed Facts
When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows:
A. No Rectification
If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play.
B. Law Provides Rectification
If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.
C. Player’sOption
If a law gives a player a choice of rectification, the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.
D. Director’sOption
The Director rules any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

Clearly, unless the laws specify a rectification willy-nilly, irregularities lead to rectification only if the NOS was actually or probably damaged (in the director's view) by the irregularity.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-20, 09:35, said:

"Irregularities must lead to rectification" is an overbid.


Clearly, unless the laws specify a rectification willy-nilly, irregularities lead to rectification only if the NOS was actually or probably damaged (in the director's view) by the irregularity.

So I think that the WB is incorrect and needs to be changed.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-20, 10:21, said:

So I think that the WB is incorrect and needs to be changed.

What should be changed?

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2016-January-23, 09:05, said:

What should be changed?

The fact that a pair can be assigned a score for defending their opponents' illegal contract (unless it is a better score than they would have had without the infraction). This does not seem to be supported by L12. In the original case, the revoke should result in an overtrick in the legal contract.

To do otherwise is to punish players who revoke, or lead out of turn or whatever, because their opponents commit an infraction. The only other option is to assign (the worst one of) a legal contract before play begins, so that there is a level playing field.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-23, 09:45, said:

To do otherwise is to punish players who revoke, or lead out of turn or whatever, because their opponents commit an infraction. The only other option is to assign (the worst one of) a legal contract before play begins, so that there is a level playing field.

But Law 12C1(b) says that we cannot ignore self-inflicted damage.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2016-January-23, 15:20, said:

But Law 12C1(b) says that we cannot ignore self-inflicted damage.

True, but the opponents' reaching an illegal contract was not self-inflicted.

This reminds me of the now-discredited "rub of the green" principle whereby the NOS's damage was calculated after the infraction instead of after the score was tallied. So if the illegal contract was very much odds-against but made, the result was kept for the NOS because their "equity" was increased when the illegal contract was bid.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-23, 19:43, said:

True, but the opponents' reaching an illegal contract was not self-inflicted.

This reminds me of the now-discredited "rub of the green" principle whereby the NOS's damage was calculated after the infraction instead of after the score was tallied. So if the illegal contract was very much odds-against but made, the result was kept for the NOS because their "equity" was increased when the illegal contract was bid.

I recall a WB comment that a serious error did not include a defensive error against a contract that one should not have been defending, but cannot (quickly) find that in the current edition. Does anyone know when and if it was removed and why?

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2016-January-25, 08:21, said:

I recall a WB comment that a serious error did not include a defensive error against a contract that one should not have been defending, but cannot (quickly) find that in the current edition. Does anyone know when and if it was removed and why?

It has been replaced by "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." (WB 8.12.5.3)

But there is also

Quote

8.12.5.4 ‘Unrelated to the Infraction’
It can be argued that if the final contract is only reached as the consequence of an infraction then any error in the play or defence must be related to it and cannot be penalised. This is considered too extreme a view and a serious error has to be more directly related to the infraction to be given redress. Note that a wild or gambling action does not need to be related to the infraction.

So the current EBU position is that it does not rule out the application of Law 12C1(b) for an error in defending a contract reached illegally.