UI + Serious error

2»

Comments

  • @timanderson said:

    @weejonnie said:

    MAking the NOS suffer playing in 6NT is including an outcome that could not have been achieved in a legal manner.

    Well, it could have been achieved in a legal manner, if there had been no hesitation. Or what is the meaning of "in a legal manner"?

    Tim

    The TD might decide that if there was no BIT then the players might have reached 6NT some of the time. IN which case he decides what percentage of 6NT -1 and 3NT+2 to award to the offending side (and 6N making/ 3N+3 to the NOS). Only in the case when he decides that 6NT would always be reached does he let the table score stand.

  • @Tag said:
    We do seem to have differing opinions on this. Some suggest that the revoke should lead to the NOS suffering 6NT-making. Some suggest that the contract should be rolled back to 3NT+3 regardless of the revoke, since 6NT should never have been bid.

    Can anyone find high-level precedent?

  • White Book 4.1.3.1

    'This is a general conclusion from the application of Law 12C1(e). When the damage is all self inflicted (without the {extremely serious} error, the non-offending side should have done better with the infraction) then the non-offending side keep their table result.'

  • OK seems resonable - so the NOS keep their 6NT and the OS presumably 3NT+2

  • Thanks, SDN

  • We have to read this:
    (i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the
    consequence of rectifying its infraction.

    I think the consequence of the infraction is playing in 6NT down 1. NOS revoke has nothing to do with the infraction (Use of UI). OS 6NT=

  • @milton said:
    We have to read this:
    (i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the
    consequence of rectifying its infraction.

    I think the consequence of the infraction is playing in 6NT down 1. NOS revoke has nothing to do with the infraction (Use of UI). OS 6NT=

    The revoke was not the infraction - the use of UI was. So we rectify first for the use of UI, but deny redress for the NOS who get the table result.

  • @Tag said:
    We do seem to have differing opinions on this. Some suggest that the revoke should lead to the NOS suffering 6NT-making. Some suggest that the contract should be rolled back to 3NT+3 regardless of the revoke, since 6NT should never have been bid.

    Can anyone find high-level precedent?

    You are unlikely to find anything in any appeals reports since it's just a straightforward application of the law. Anyone who did appeal such a ruling would have it heard by the Chief TD.

  • @milton said:
    We have to read this:
    (i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the
    consequence of rectifying its infraction.

    I think the consequence of the infraction is playing in 6NT down 1. NOS revoke has nothing to do with the infraction (Use of UI). OS 6NT=

    You seem to have emphasised the inappropriate word, viz. 'consequence'. We are not considering the 'consequence' of the infraction, we are looking at the consequence of 'rectifying' the infraction. And the consequence of rectifying the infraction is to roll back the contract to 3NT for the OS, which is where it would have stopped but for the infraction. The outcome of that contract is 3NT+3 because the NOS allowed them to score (not 'make') 12 tricks following the revoke.

    Had the NOS not revoked they would also have got the same result, but because they revoked they get the table result, a worse outcome.

  • Why is penalising an accidental revoke more important that restoring equity after the other side cheated?

  • It seems that there are different views about this among top directors so we need to wait until the Commentary (hopefully not far away...) clarifies it for us.

  • @StevenG said:
    Why is penalising an accidental revoke more important that restoring equity after the other side cheated?

    Neither penalising is more important than the other. Each infraction or mistake carries its own 'penalty', using this word in a generic sense.

    The OS committed an infraction by bidding 6NT via an illegal means, so this gets corrected back to 3NT which is what they were legally entitled to. That is what the Law says. It is not a penalty, it is a rectification.

    The OS did not make the mistake of the revoke, their opponents did that. The OS do not bear any responsibility for the revoke so there should be no cause to deny them (the OS) the consequence of the revoke. So they should get 12 tricks. There is no Law which denies them this result.

    That covers the OS.

    The NOS made the error of revoking, which converted a potential plus score, which would have been a top score, into a negative score, a bottom. They damaged themselves by their error, no fault of the opponents, who actually gave them a chance to get a top score! So they deserve no relief. That is what the Law says. All revokes are (usually) accidental and the players who revoke should not be able to claim relief simply because of what the other side did or did not do, _as long as the two acts are unrelated_. The other side has borne the consequences of its own illegal act separately.

    These arguments are based on the principle of natural justice, which underlies, or is supposed to underlie, all laws. They are also, where applicable, in agreement with Law 12 C 1 e and the one in the White Book that I have quoted above.

  • There have been various emails flying around at top level, involving some of the members of the WBFLC, and the consensus seems to be that in a case such as originally presented we consider that no damage was created by the infraction - since the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction - and therefore there is no reason to adjust for either side.

    This was established in a case at the European Championships in Budapest two years ago, at which I was present and aware of the case, but clearly not sufficiently aware that its importance remained with me.

    I think we can now expect with confidence that it will be stated clearly in the Commentary and/or the next WBFLC minutes.

  • In that case, I guess the next question is as to what test will be used to determine whether a side ended up better off as the result of an infraction. Suppose a side makes illegal use of UI to change a 100%-to-make 3NT into a 40%-to-make 6NT. One obvious way to determine which contract is better is to see whether 6NT actually made, but under this ruling, the actual play results should be irrelevant. So presumably we need to do something like comparing the weighted result from 6NT with the weighted result from 3NT, taking the actual form of scoring into account.

  • @ais523 said:
    In that case, I guess the next question is as to what test will be used to determine whether a side ended up better off as the result of an infraction. Suppose a side makes illegal use of UI to change a 100%-to-make 3NT into a 40%-to-make 6NT. One obvious way to determine which contract is better is to see whether 6NT actually made, but under this ruling, the actual play results should be irrelevant. So presumably we need to do something like comparing the weighted result from 6NT with the weighted result from 3NT, taking the actual form of scoring into account.

    I don't know whether we can regard the NOS as being in a better position. Although the a-priori odds of the 6NT contract may be 40% (or even 20%) - if the way the cards lie mean that it is a 100% action (or can't be stopped by any obvious means in the NOS repertoire) then the NOS aren't in a better position. If the contract has 0% chance of making then the NOS obviously ARE in a better position, however it should still take an ESEOG action to prevent the contract being ruled back.

  • Thank you, Gordon.

  • Thank you Gordon, this completes I think the answer of our case.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    There have been various emails flying around at top level, involving some of the members of the WBFLC, and the consensus seems to be that in a case such as originally presented we consider that no damage was created by the infraction - since the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction - and therefore there is no reason to adjust for either side.

    This was established in a case at the European Championships in Budapest two years ago, at which I was present and aware of the case, but clearly not sufficiently aware that its importance remained with me.

    I think we can now expect with confidence that it will be stated clearly in the Commentary and/or the next WBFLC minutes.

    I would appreciate clarification on how this is to be compared or contrasted with the example on p 76 of the White Book, where it is shown that where there is no real damage, i.e. all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side gets the actual table result and the offending side gets the 'score for the result before infraction'.

    When do we apply the advice given here, viz. no reason to adjust because the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction, and when do we apply the formula in the White Book.

  • @SDN said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    There have been various emails flying around at top level, involving some of the members of the WBFLC, and the consensus seems to be that in a case such as originally presented we consider that no damage was created by the infraction - since the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction - and therefore there is no reason to adjust for either side.

    This was established in a case at the European Championships in Budapest two years ago, at which I was present and aware of the case, but clearly not sufficiently aware that its importance remained with me.

    I think we can now expect with confidence that it will be stated clearly in the Commentary and/or the next WBFLC minutes.

    I would appreciate clarification on how this is to be compared or contrasted with the example on p 76 of the White Book, where it is shown that where there is no real damage, i.e. all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side gets the actual table result and the offending side gets the 'score for the result before infraction'.

    When do we apply the advice given here, viz. no reason to adjust because the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction, and when do we apply the formula in the White Book.

    I think we can expect the WBF to make known their current view, either in the commentary or minutes of a meeting, after which we will consider whether the White book advice needs to be updated. In the meantime, hope this doesn't come up!

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @SDN said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    There have been various emails flying around at top level, involving some of the members of the WBFLC, and the consensus seems to be that in a case such as originally presented we consider that no damage was created by the infraction - since the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction - and therefore there is no reason to adjust for either side.

    This was established in a case at the European Championships in Budapest two years ago, at which I was present and aware of the case, but clearly not sufficiently aware that its importance remained with me.

    I think we can now expect with confidence that it will be stated clearly in the Commentary and/or the next WBFLC minutes.

    I would appreciate clarification on how this is to be compared or contrasted with the example on p 76 of the White Book, where it is shown that where there is no real damage, i.e. all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side gets the actual table result and the offending side gets the 'score for the result before infraction'.

    When do we apply the advice given here, viz. no reason to adjust because the NOS were in a better spot after the infraction, and when do we apply the formula in the White Book.

    I think we can expect the WBF to make known their current view, either in the commentary or minutes of a meeting, after which we will consider whether the White book advice needs to be updated. In the meantime, hope this doesn't come up!

    Thanks

  • Although this discussion has effectively been closed, I thought I would mention that while I was surfing the Australian Directors Association site recently I came across a 'Lecture on Law 12 (2017)', which includes the following:

    "WBF Laws Committee, Philadelphia 12th October 2010: An ACBL example was cited of a contract of 6 Spades reached after a slow signoff by the partner. The contract should go one light but defender revokes allowing it to make, an example of a serious error unrelated to the infraction. It is decided to adjust the score. The defending side will bear the consequence of its serious error and be awarded -980. The declaring will be put back
    to the five level and as to the number of tricks to be awarded the Director will assess what would have happened in that contract. (At the lower level it may be that Declarer and/or defender would have reason to play differently.)
    The defenders were going to get a good score for 6S going down so all the damage was caused by the revoke."

    Does this make a difference?

  • Well this case preceded the one in Budapest that seems to have established the new approach.

Sign In or Register to comment.