[barmar]

I think it makes sense. If opener has a strong NT, there's a good chance they're making their contract, and you may be sacrificing, so you want a better suit. But over a weak NT you may be willing to balance with a more balanced hand and general strength, so a 5-card suit is enough.

I don't see what transfers have to do with it, unless you're saying that he should have been able to figure out that they were playing weak NT because 2♥ wasn't a transfer.

[szgyula]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-31, 03:35, said:

I would need a lot more explanation to buy the MI that west is trying to sell me. He seems to be inventing it in the air. Unless no transfers over strong NT is common in Hungary what he said: 'against a pair playing strong NT shows a strong, long S (6-7 in length, some value in side suits) while over a weak 1NT it is a balancing bid with a 5 card suit.' makes no sense.

It is very simple. Against strong NT, we, by partnership agreement, show only distributional hands. Against weak NT, we play natural bids. E.g. 1N-2C (direct) would show an unspecified 6+ suit over a strong 1NT, while it would be a natural club overcall over a weak 1NT opening, not dramatically different from a 1D-2C sequence. In the given situation, the 2S is a 5 card balancing bid over a weak 1N opening and a distributional hand over a strong NT (by partnership agreement). Look at the hand: knowing that S length can be only 5, the 2N is automatic with a good holding in opponents suit (H).

BTW, this part was accepted at the table by the director. He did not investigate it deeper, but we had a CC showing the different defense treatment of 1NT opening based on 1NT opening style of the opponents. We also had used both styles during that evening before that that could have been checked.

[Fluffy]

So partner failed to overcall 2♣ over 1NT denying 6 spades, and now you say that 2♠ balancing must be 6 cards that he previously denied?. But I gather he must be distributional against strong nt to reoen, he surely has a side suit, a suit for wich you have fit but didn't try to find.

[szgyula]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-31, 07:20, said:

So partner failed to overcall 2♣ over 1NT denying 6 spades, and now you say that 2♠ balancing must be 6 cards that he previously denied?. But I gather he must be distributional against strong nt to reoen, he surely has a side suit, a suit for wich you have fit but didn't try to find.

He needs 9-14 points to overcall with 6 spades in the direct position. Even with enough points, he may decide to "wait and see" if his hand is good to defend against some contracts. There is enough room to bid 2S. Keeping a 6 card suit secret may be beneficial.

[Fluffy]

do you realice that the 9-14 thing you have just deduced, has been deduced NOW and not when the hand happened? Overcalling solid against strong nt and light against weak is a mistaken concept, bu that is another question.

[barmar]

I think you've got it backwards. Over weak NT you tend to interfere with constructive hands, because you may be able to make something (even a game). Over strong NT you interfere with weak, shapely hands for preemptive reasons. And that seems to be how it was explained at the table: the spades should be longer if NT is strong.

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2013-January-31, 17:55, said:

I think you've got it backwards. Over weak NT you tend to interfere with constructive hands, because you may be able to make something (even a game). Over strong NT you interfere with weak, shapely hands for preemptive reasons. And that seems to be how it was explained at the table: the spades should be longer if NT is strong.

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences. My only argument is that the infraction made it worse. I am only seeking compensation for that extra damage, nothing beyond that. Thus, I expected a ruling that makes an educated guess about the outcome of the 2N contract and assign that score. Nothing beyond that.

[iviehoff]

szgyula, on 2013-February-01, 01:51, said:

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences. My only argument is that the infraction made it worse. I am only seeking compensation for that extra damage, nothing beyond that.

Precisely. If there was any poor action, it occurred before the point at which the damage from the infraction occurred, and adjusting for the infraction does not remove the effect of the poor action. So, in practical terms for making a ruling, we simply ignore it.

[barmar]

szgyula, on 2013-February-01, 01:51, said:

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post that you quoted. I was simply supporting your explanation of the agreement, not commenting on East's judgement.

[bluejak]

While I think I am merely repeating, perhaps I might just summarise the basic position, ignoring the judgement behind the ruling.

When there is an infraction leading to damage, the score is adjusted for the offending side under Law 12C1C [most of the world, including Hungary] or 12C1E [North America]. 12C1B does not affect this.

If the non-offending side has contributed to its own poor result by committing, after the infraction:

• wild action, eg they go mad and make a ridiculous double of a clearly making contract, or
  
• gambling action, generally considered the double shot, eg they double a contract which might or might not make, hoping for a favourable ruling if it does make, or an excellent score it if it does not, or
  
• commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction, eg a revoke, lead out of turn, or a shockingly bad play

then Law 12C1B means they lose redress in the amount of damage caused by one or more of the above. We refer to such actions as SEWoG, standing for Serious Error, Wild or Gambling.

So the first point is that if the TD's ruling is based on Law 12C1B then he must adjust for the offending side.

Now, for it to be SEWoG, you compare it with normal play, not with a double dummy analysis! Within the last week I played 1NT -4: Deep Finesse pointed out unkindly that I could have made it. No-one thinks I misplayed it: I had a club suit in an entry-less hand and have to assume it is 4-1 to make it, going off when it is 3-2.

There have already been some cases even amongst the pretty well trained EBU TDs of over-use of Deep Finesse's analysis. The TD should be looking at how the hand would normally be played, and why it went four off, and it it takes a very bad mistake for him to conclude it was a Serious Error, and therefore deny redress under Law 12C1B. I leave it to others to judge the actual hand.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-February-11, 07:51, said:

If the non-offending side has contributed to its own poor result by committing, after the infraction: (SEWOG)

Unfortunately you didn't address what for some is the most difficult legal point of this case.

In the present case, the alleged SEWOG (let us consider the case when it actually is SEWOG) occurred after the point in time at which the MI was provided, but before the point in time at which the non-offending player made use of the MI to his disadvantage.

I don't see it as a problem myself, but other people do, so a definitive statement from you on this issue would be useful.

[bluejak]

<puzzled>

The infraction is the MI. After the infraction is after the MI was given.

What other interpretation is possible?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-February-11, 11:36, said:

<puzzled>
The infraction is the MI. After the infraction is after the MI was given.
What other interpretation is possible?

Order of events:
MI provided
SEWOG action by NOS
MI used by innocent player to his side's disadvantage

The Director argued that there was no redress because a SEWOG action followed the point of time of the infraction. In my view this is a serious misunderstanding of 12C1b, at the least.

Therefore a clear statement from you of exactly how we adjust (ie apply 12C1b) in the situation where the order of events described above occurs would be useful.

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-12, 05:17, said:

Order of events:
MI provided
SEWOG action by NOS
MI used by innocent player to his side's disadvantage

The Director argued that there was no redress because a SEWOG action followed the point of time of the infraction. In my view this is a serious misunderstanding of 12C1b, at the least.

Therefore a clear statement from you of exactly how we adjust (ie apply 12C1b) in the situation where the order of events described above occurs would be useful.

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

Quote

(b) 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.The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

I am completely lost. A player gives his opponent MI. According to Law 12C1B quoted above SEWoG applies from that moment. I really do not understand any other interpretation.

In the case in point the TD misunderstood

• what constituted a SEWoG, and
  
• that Law 12C1B only applied to one side.

But his timing was fine: the play followed the MI being given and thus Law 12C1B could have applied.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-February-12, 07:53, said:

I am completely lost. A player gives his opponent MI. According to Law 12C1B quoted above SEWoG applies from that moment. I really do not understand any other interpretation.

Yes, it is very easy. I just wanted you to spell it out since apparently people find it hard to understand.

I really didn't want to put words into your mouth, but here is my interpretation of the situation. It would be useful if you would confirm it is correct.

Since the decision which incurred damage (as a result of MI provided earlier) occurred at a point subsequent to the SEWOG, a straightforward adjustment, based upon the action that the NOS would have taken if correctly informed at the moment of the infected decision, and giving the same score to both sides, is an adjustment consistent with 12C1b. This is because, since the adjusted action is subsequent to the SEWOG, the NOS suffer the cost of the SEWOG in the adjusted score. This adjustment for the OS is precisely the normal adjustment for an OS.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-12, 05:17, said:

However I would also point out that there is also available another interpretation, which leads to the same result in this case as properly applying 12C1b, and which runs as follows. After a player has given MI to an opponent, that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI. Therefore one can say that an infraction has occurred at the time at which an innocent player uses MI to his disadvantage, because at that moment his opponent who provided the MI infracted in not correcting the MI. Thus one can construe there to have been an infraction after the SEWOG.

This logic is flawed because the premise "that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI" is false. Law 20F4 imposes the obligation only if the player subsequently, after giving MI, realizes that he has done so. He has no obligation to do anything if he does not realize he has given MI.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-12, 09:53, said:

This logic is flawed because the premise "that player is under a continuing obligation to correct the MI" is false. Law 20F4 imposes the obligation only if the player subsequently, after giving MI, realizes that he has done so. He has no obligation to do anything if he does not realize he has given MI.

OK, I'll withdraw that one then. It shouldn't make any difference. If it was true it would just give us an easy way of coming to the same conclusion.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-13, 07:52, said:

OK, I'll withdraw that one then. It shouldn't make any difference. If it was true it would just give us an easy way of coming to the same conclusion.

What conclusion? That there was an infraction after the SEWoG? No basis for an infraction means no infraction. Or do you now have some new basis in mind?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-13, 10:38, said:

What conclusion?

The argument I offer in post #35. The words I have withdrawn in #33, the final paragraph there, were only ever a suggestion of an alternative line of argument resulting in the same conclusion.

[blackshoe]

I don't really understand your post #35. That's one reason I left it to David to answer.