Adjustment examples

Firstly, thank you Gordon I found your article in the October mag (page 58) very useful on several occassions. Sort of "dug" me out of a couple of deep holes.

I was wondering if it might be possible to follow up with a few more similar articles. I find that people are very knowledgeable on here but after a while my brain refuses to sort the new from the repeated and somehow the context gets lost in the fog. Whereas your article "ran" together well.

I can't think of a precise subject to cover but I am sure that some of the really long threads on here could be "abridged" and more context supplied.
So how about it?

CMOT_Dibbler

Comments

  • Thank you for you comments - it did seem to be well-received. In principle I'd be happy to do others, but I think I do need to have an idea to base it on, so give some more thought to things that you think are commonly misunderstood. This one was borne out of an understanding that many players are not fully aware of their responsibilities under UI, but I wanted to find a way to avoid preaching too much.

  • Ok had a thought about an insufficient bid which is changed for a sufficient bid in the same denomination but the change is deemed/seen by NOS to give an advantage to the offending side. How do you go about sorting out if it does give an advantage [say no one else in the field gets there but how do you decide whether the offenders would not get there anyway] or is that a "benefit" too far. Also it seems that we have slightly got tied in with "comparable" calls and forgotten the other options that are available to the "offender" and their effects. As someone pointed out in another thread they had forgotten what had happened and it is so easy to do in the pressure of the moment.

    Sorry brain isn't ticking over well at the moment and I am thinking of all those directors that do not read these threads but would be helped, like me, with a "light" illustration.

    By the way I do appreciate the input from others on these threads as it does give another perspective but sometimes my brain just goes into a fug with the depth of knowledge shown here. Sometimes things are said in which I understand the theory but the practical aspect is difficult to grasp (like scoring beyond setting up and posting the results).

    CMOT_Dibbler

  • There was some law 23 commentary that talked about this a little. I believe what it says, essentially, is that if a player opts to overbid rather than debar their partner from bidding, that isn't grounds for adjustment by itself. The way I see it, they're specifically allowed to make the bid in law, they're allowed to make a bad bid, and that will occasionally pay off.

    Where the commentary does say you might adjust, is if their partner appears to have been aided by information from the withdrawn call. Basically, if they seem to have fielded the misbid :). It's not UI, but the thinking is similar.

  • The player who made the IB can make any legal call ( an X or XX must be comparable) - whether there is any rectification depends on if the call is comparable/ lowest call showing the same denomination(s), or not. But that rectification is purely that partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call and lead restriction may apply. Law 27 (IB) is a specific exception to the general rule that after rectification a side can take any action they like even if they appear to profit from the infraction. 10C4

    Also: the players must achieve a better score than they would have had the IB not taken place. Thus if a player overbids but the director works out that the contract would be the same without the IB (e.g. had there not been the penalty of barring partner the player who made the IB would have made another bid and this would have resulted in the same contract), then there is no damage.

  • This series of short emails by Max Bavin on our website may be helpful - I certainly found them so.

  • I like to think about a distinction between unauthorised and extraneous information:

    Unauthorised information = you have to do things counter-suggested by the information; if you don't, and end up with a better score as a result, we calculate the score that would be obtained if you had done so, and impose that score.
    Extraneous information = you may do things suggested by the information; however, if you gain an advantage from doing so, the score is adjusted to a normal result (which may contain some weight for the course of action you actually took).

    Examples of extraneous information include overhearing results from another table, and insufficient bids by partner which were replaced by a comparable call. Note that unauthorised information can only be possessed by a member of an offending side, whereas it's possible for a non-offender to have extraneous information.

  • Thanks Gordon.
    I have read those e-mails and something seems counter-intuitive with the Prague case. I can see the N/S would be saying that in normal circumstances (when are there normal circumstances!!) West would pass Souths overcall of 2 Clubs. But because of their BOOT they take the risk and reach a contract that no one else will reach. So haven't the partnership taken advantage ? Is it because they have taken the risk and that they might well have gone 2 off.
    Anyway I think there are a lot more problems with that case particularly as West played with 12 cards.

    CMOT_Dibbler

  • @CMOT_Dibbler said:
    Thanks Gordon.
    I have read those e-mails and something seems counter-intuitive with the Prague case. I can see the N/S would be saying that in normal circumstances (when are there normal circumstances!!) West would pass Souths overcall of 2 Clubs. But because of their BOOT they take the risk and reach a contract that no one else will reach. So haven't the partnership taken advantage ? Is it because they have taken the risk and that they might well have gone 2 off.
    Anyway I think there are a lot more problems with that case particularly as West played with 12 cards.

    CMOT_Dibbler

    Amazing that it has been so widely used and seen without anyone apparently noticing the missing card!

    The point is that the players could have overbid their way to a lucky 4S without any infraction being involved, so the infraction didn't provide any "assistance".

  • Ok Gordon, see what you mean , however, it is a bit of a fine line to take. I assume it was based on a poll of players as to what they would do, without knowing about the BOOT.

    CMOT_Dibbler

  • @CMOT_Dibbler said:
    Ok Gordon, see what you mean , however, it is a bit of a fine line to take. I assume it was based on a poll of players as to what they would do, without knowing about the BOOT.

    CMOT_Dibbler

    No, it's not a UI matter, as is explicitly stated in L27B1a. This is based on the guidance issued by the former WBF head TD and the WBFLC over the last 12 years or so. It has no connection with what other people would do, just with what this pair, with their agreements, could do.

Sign In or Register to comment.