BBO Discussion Forums: SEoW? - BBO Discussion Forums

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-16, 21:27, said:

Yeh, well, either way on this hand he is right. Probably better to pick a different thread in which to pick on his wording.

 Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 15:40, said:

Are we quibbling over the form of the request? Compare:

1) Director, please assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI.

2) Director, I think NS are guilty of blatant use of UI, enough to warrant a PP. Here's what happened: ...

The first is an explicit request, the second just provides info. But the substance is clearly the same in both cases, it's just the form that's different.

Law 16B1{a} prohibits choosing from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by extraneous information from partner.

 Cascade, on 2011-December-15, 18:16, said:

Shouldn't West have cue bid at his first turn, to show a good hand? The leap to 4♥ sounds like a weak, preemptive bid, which is why East doesn't expect him to have any defensive help. Does this not rise to the level of a Serious Error?

Or couldn't West have doubled 5♦? He knows partner doesn't have good hearts, so he has to have some outside strength.

BTW, down 3 seems like double dummy defense. It looks to me like the only way to get that is by avoiding an opening ♥ lead, so that East can get to him for a ♣ ruff.

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-16, 21:27, said:

I don't think you would dispute that "Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested."

Yes we both know that the law has wider implications than what I wrote. However that does not make my statement false.

I did not attempt to quote a law nor did I suggest that I had quoted a law.

I did make a statement about a consequence of a law. Sure that law has other wider consequences maybe i should have included them but i did not.

 barmar, on 2011-December-16, 22:46, said:

I am not sure.

I don't see how the wording matters.

There doesn't seem to be anything that prohibits a player from suggesting a penalty. And I can't see what harm it can do.

 barmar, on 2011-December-16, 23:00, said:

Indeed perhaps this is a serious error unrelated to the infraction. However this occurred before the infraction and Law 12C1b begins "If, subsequent to the irregularity,...".

Whether it is intended or not I do not know but it seems that the lawmakers have excluded the possibility of a serious error prior to the infraction causing a problem subsequent to the infraction.

 barmar, on 2011-December-16, 22:46, said:

On balance I think I'd prefer "Director, we seem to have got a good score from it, but South bid on over an agreed hesitation by North, so I think you should have a look anyway just to make sure" - as long as you trust your TD to remember he can still give a PP, even when there's no reason to adjust. It also is much less accusatory towards the opponents.

 Cascade, on 2011-December-17, 00:09, said:

My question was more at the ones who felt that players shouldn't request a PP. Do they feel there's a difference between requesting and suggesting a PP? Or is it wrong for the players to make any mention of PP? Why shouldn't players be allowed to express an opinion on this matter. Of course it's the TD's final decision, but where do the laws suggest that he must do this entirely on his own?

This thing about PP.... shouldn't the call to director be made after the 5♦ bid?, are you talking about calling director again after the board, or about calling him only after the board for the PP

 Fluffy, on 2011-December-17, 05:23, said:

Quote

The emphasis is mine.

 barmar, on 2011-December-16, 22:46, said:

No, even the second assumes the existence and use of UI.

Who is to decide if there was use of UI?

Try:

3) Director, This is what happened and I would like to have a judgement on North's call after South's BIT.

Yes, Barmar, we seem to be quibbling over the form of the request. IMO, the players can be excused for not having thought out carefully exactly how to word things when the TD arrives; but the TD himself should have the training, if not the predisposition, to ignore imperfect presentations and proceed without injecting personality into it by making gratuitous "I am the boss, not you" comments.

Some strange posts here.

Any player has the right to call the TD if there is an infraction. He can tell the TD anything relevant, and that includes his opinion that a PP or DP is warranted. Any TD who tells them it is not his business is being unnecessarily rude and is wrong: it is his business. The TD, of course, does not need to act on such a suggestion.

Furthermore, there is no need to recall the TD if there seems to be no damage. So if 800 was scored by E/W they can call the TD or not as they please.

5♦ is not an LA per se. That does not affect the fact that it can be ruled back. There have been a million discussions on this, with about five or six legal bases for doing so. Please just accept that we can rule it back.

Despite the ludicrousness of the choice of 5♦ there is no doubt it was a breach of Law 73C so we can adjust.

A weighted score between 420 and 450 seems reasonable outside the ACBL, and a split score inside the ACBL.

Finally, while it is generally wrong to consider other results because of different bidding sequences and so on, when it is solely the number of tricks to be made in a normal contract it is not unreasonable to consider other scores as part of the evidence.

 Vampyr, on 2011-December-16, 21:27, said:

Nonetheless, for that law to apply, the call chosen has to have been a logical alternative in the first place, which it is clearly not on this hand -- unless we're using the fact that it was chosen as evidence of it being a LA, and I forget which way the RA's have gone on that issue.

This call is so far out in left field! Would there be an issue had south chosen 7D over the hesitation and it rolled on a bad lead? I suspect "south is allowed to be terrible, sorry" would be the answer given to the NOS.

edit: I must have replied without seeing this page of responses, in particular, bluejak's immediately above.

Grattan once told me that "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". So it isn't the case that the alternatives under consideration, and in particular the one chosen by a player in receipt of UI, have to be "logical", only that it has to be plausible that this player might choose them — and the fact that he did choose a particular action automatically makes it a plausible alternative.

I've never liked that approach, but that's what I was told.

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-17, 12:34, said:

It was clever of him to find a way to promulgate law changes that is even less effective than a WBFLC minute. Did he mention whether, when and how he planned to share this with the rest of the bridge-playing world?

 gnasher, on 2011-December-17, 18:46, said:

I think we have to wait until the next issue of the Laws, as ever. Grattan has also indicated, via BLML, that there is a grammatical error in 12C1b, which reads:

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.

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction) it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

The intention was that any action related to the infraction would not deny redress, but the clause was wrongly worded last time out.

 lamford, on 2011-December-18, 09:08, said:

I don't recall anyone at San Remo making this point, where we had an extensive discussion about Serious Errors and where several members of the WBFLC including Grattan were present. Perhaps it escaped me.

If we wish to disallow double-shots (and we could certainly have a discussion about whether or not that is desirable), then I think we should leave it as it is.

 lamford, on 2011-December-18, 09:08, said:

I find this difficult to believe. It seems clear that the lawmakers intended "unrelated to the infraction" to attach to (only) "serious error" because they have gone out of their way to order the words in the way they did. In fact a construction of the type you suggest: "has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction)" is ambiguous as it is not clear whether the wording in brackets relates to the part preceding the "or" or not.