[weejonnie]

 ggwhiz, on 2016-April-17, 08:46, said:

Interesting that North apparently saved the day (adjustment wise) with the ethical 5♥ call.

It's not a big stretch to think south honestly thought they would pull to 5♦ without the alert but the next pull to 6♦ is even more clearly out of bounds. Should there be some consideration for 5♥ doubled?

IMHO no - for the simple reason that 5♥ doubled was only reached after the <disallowed> 5♦ call. Since South is barred from making that call, no auction can be included with it in.

I likewise applaud North for signing off, even though it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances

[mink]

 weejonnie, on 2016-April-18, 03:01, said:

IMHO no - for the simple reason that 5♥ doubled was only reached after the <disallowed> 5♦ call. Since South is barred from making that call, no auction can be included with it in.

The 5♦ bid was never cancelled. The auction continued after it. Law 12A reads:

Quote

On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (...). This includes: ...

The word "may" makes it clear that the TD is not forced to award an adjusted score based on some specific infraction. A valid reason to disregard some infraction is that some other infraction causes more damage than the first one.

Karl

[Trinidad]

 weejonnie, on 2016-April-18, 03:01, said:

IMHO no - for the simple reason that 5♥ doubled was only reached after the <disallowed> 5♦ call. Since South is barred from making that call, no auction can be included with it in.

I likewise applaud North for signing off, even though it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances

That is one way of reasoning. There is another way:

South committed two infractions: the 5♦ bid and the 6♦ bid. Each is dealt with individually.

The 6♦ bid caused damage and we should adjust the score to the result obtained without the 6♦ bid: 5♥X down a couple.
The 5♦ bid did not cause damage. After all, the result with that infraction was 5♥X down a couple and without the infraction it would have been 4♥X down one less.

Infractions are not handled chronologically. They are handled with respect to the amount of damage they caused. This is not something odd. The same happens in everyday life:
You drive your car and you need to swerve for an oncoming truck that gets into your lane. As a result, you hit the curb and break a tire. You are entitled to compensation.
Now the truck driver comes back to you and -because he is nervous- hits your car and totals it.

Is there anybody who would argue that a new tire would be sufficient compensation since without the first infraction you would have never gotten to the second? No.

After the first infraction (back at the bridge table) you are allowed (if not obliged) to try and get the best result, an even better result than without that infraction. If you then get robbed of that possibility by a second infraction, the second infraction causes damage. This damage can be larger than the damage caused by the first infraction.

In short: you always adjust for the infraction that will lead to the most favorable result for the NOS. All other infractions will not have caused damage, compared to the path through "the most favorable infraction".

Rik

[weejonnie]

 Trinidad, on 2016-April-18, 04:05, said:

That is one way of reasoning. There is another way:

South committed two infractions: the 5♦ bid and the 6♦ bid. Each is dealt with individually.

The 6♦ bid caused damage and we should adjust the score to the result obtained without the 6♦ bid: 5♥X down a couple.
The 5♦ bid did not cause damage. After all, the result with that infraction was 5♥X down a couple and without the infraction it would have been 4♥X down one less.

Infractions are not handled chronologically. They are handled with respect to the amount of damage they caused. This is not something odd. The same happens in everyday life:
You drive your car and you need to swerve for an oncoming truck that gets into your lane. As a result, you hit the curb and break a tire. You are entitled to compensation.
Now the truck driver comes back to you and -because he is nervous- hits your car and totals it.

Is there anybody who would argue that a new tire would be sufficient compensation since without the first infraction you would have never gotten to the second? No.

After the first infraction (back at the bridge table) you are allowed (if not obliged) to try and get the best result, an even better result than without that infraction. If you then get robbed of that possibility by a second infraction, the second infraction causes damage. This damage can be larger than the damage caused by the first infraction.

In short: you always adjust for the infraction that will lead to the most favorable result for the NOS. All other infractions will not have caused damage, compared to the path through "the most favorable infraction".

Rik

Thanks for this - and I appreciate the point. Presumably the PP that NS are going to receive is going to be based on the more egregarious second use of UI as well.

[VixTD]

Mink is right when he says the score should be adjusted to 5♥X - lots, for the reasoning that Trinidad gives above. It was South's illegal bid of 6♦ that damaged EW most.

Kenberg, if may not be an offence to call the director when you did, but in my experience it's never a good idea. You can never improve your score by doing so (the director's adjusted score will always be at least as good as the one you get if you let the auction continue), and you will cause all manner of problems for your own side if (unlikely as it may seem) your opponents' actions are honest and legitimate (e.g. South is now showing a void and slam interest).

[kenberg]

 VixTD, on 2016-April-18, 07:39, said:

Kenberg, if may not be an offence to call the director when you did, but in my experience it's never a good idea. You can never improve your score by doing so (the director's adjusted score will always be at least as good as the one you get if you let the auction continue), and you will cause all manner of problems for your own side if (unlikely as it may seem) your opponents' actions are honest and legitimate (e.g. South is now showing a void and slam interest).

Right. This is how I thought about it later. There is the further issue that no doubt part of why I "knew' rho held diamond length rather than splinter support is that I am looking at two of them and partner bid clubs, not diamonds.

Mostly I think it was frustration. Rho has been around for a long time, just as I have. He is a good not great player, which is how I think of myself. Advanced not expert. As mentioned earlier, I like the guy. I had not expected this. Surely he knows he cannot bid 5♦ here. More of a visceral reaction on my part rather than a thought out one.

I agree that waiting is best, even if (perhaps a big if) the rules allow me to call immediately. An argument, a bit far fetched but still an argument, could be made that my director call at the time that I made it, after the 5♦, makes it clear that I am confident that this is an attempt to play in diamonds and so I must have short diamonds. Or it might be construed as suggesting to partner that if he has any doubts about doubling 5♥ he should forego those doubts. Or something. Anyway, next time I shut my mouth until the facts are clearly in front of us all. Best, I think.

[robert2734]

If north-south should know better, I'd whack them with a procedural penalty. That will hurt them more than 5 ♥ X down half a million which takes away their last half a matchpoint. If 4 ♥ should end the auction, why consider anything that happens after that?

[kenberg]

 robert2734, on 2016-April-18, 13:31, said:

If north-south should know better, I'd whack them with a procedural penalty. That will hurt them more than 5 ♥ X down half a million which takes away their last half a matchpoint. If 4 ♥ should end the auction, why consider anything that happens after that?

Maybe there should be a penalty for "Annoying the Director"

Next time I quietly pass 5♦ and let the director sort it all out later.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-18, 15:27, said:

Maybe there should be a penalty for "Annoying the Director"

Ken,

Good TDs rarely get annoyed. And they certainly won't get annoyed for being called to a table and giving a ruling.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

5♥X down a lot plus a penalty for South seems obvious. I am surprised there is so much discussion about it!