[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-12, 08:50, said:

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.

I am sorry, but having read this a few times I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying, so I cannot confirm or deny you are correct.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-February-13, 19:10, said:

I am sorry, but having read this a few times I still find it difficult to understand what you are saying, so I cannot confirm or deny you are correct.

I'll try again. To implement 12C1b in the situation described*, you may as well ignore that there was ever any SEWOG, because this produces the correct adjustment under 12C1b. Is that clear enough?

The explanation for this delightfully simple solution is that, because the damage occurred after the SEWOG, a standard adjustment to rectify the damage, includes the effect of the SEWOG for the NOS, as described in 12C1b. And is also the correct adjustment for the OS.

*The situation described is MI given first, then SEWOG, then NOS take decision with MI that damages them.

[Fluffy]

nobody understands you because what you say makes no sense. You seem to think that because SEWOG is prior to another decision that suposedly is based on MI, that you can adjust like if the MI ocurred after the SEWOG. That is not true.

[WellSpyder]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-14, 03:19, said:

nobody understands you because what you say makes no sense. You seem to think that because SEWOG is prior to another decision that suposedly is based on MI, that you can adjust like if the MI ocurred after the SEWOG. That is not true.

Well I think I have finally grasped what iviehoff is saying, and it makes sense to me. I think the point is that the DAMAGE occurred after the SEWOG, so in adjusting for the damage you are still adjusting to a position that includes the effect of the SEWOG. Since that is the case, there is no need to adjust differently for the OS and NOS.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-14, 02:40, said:

I'll try again. To implement 12C1b in the situation described*, you may as well ignore that there was ever any SEWOG, because this produces the correct adjustment under 12C1b. Is that clear enough?

The explanation for this delightfully simple solution is that, because the damage occurred after the SEWOG, a standard adjustment to rectify the damage, includes the effect of the SEWOG for the NOS, as described in 12C1b. And is also the correct adjustment for the OS.

*The situation described is MI given first, then SEWOG, then NOS take decision with MI that damages them.

If that is what you are saying then I do not agree. The reason I do not like such generalisations and also prefer discussion of real cases is because it is remarkably difficult to say what is wrong with such an approach, apart from the fact that it seems completely unnecessary.

When adjusting for damage, first you adjust for the offending side (OS) under Law 12C1C or 12C1E as appropriate. Then, you consider the non-offending side (NOS). Their basic adjustment may be different from the OS under Law 12C1E, or may be the same: the standards are different. If ruling under Law 12C1C then it is usually the same as for the OS.

Having decided the basic adjustment for the NOS you then consider a further adjustment for the NOS only if they committed SEWoG either before or after the use of any MI, so long as it is after the irregularity, in this case after the MI was first given. The further adjustment is in the amount of the effect of the SEWoG, but the NOS will not get worse than table score.

Does this help?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-February-14, 04:34, said:

Having decided the basic adjustment for the NOS you then consider a further adjustment for the NOS only if they committed SEWoG either before or after the use of any MI, so long as it is after the irregularity, in this case after the MI was first given. The further adjustment is in the amount of the effect of the SEWoG, but the NOS will not get worse than table score.

Does this help?

No, I am asking you to explain the effect of those words in the specific situation I have described, which I believe to be sufficiently well-defined to admit of a specific discussion. But if you want an even more specific case, you can use the specific case of the OP, accepting the argument that the alleged SEWOG was SEWOG, but rejecting the argument about double dummy analysis.

[campboy]

Here's what happens. Damage occurs when, as a result of an irregularity, the result obtained is worse than the expectation without the irregularity. So here we have a table result which is -200 and the expectation without the irregularity is say -100 for 2NT off 2.

NOS do not receive redress for however much damage was caused by the SEWoG action. Without the SEWoG action the contract would have been 2♥, and let's say this makes 8 tricks for -110. So the SEWoG caused the swing from -110 to -200 and that's the bit they don't get redress for.

So let's say -200 gets you x matchpoints, -110 gets you y and -100 gets you z, with x<=y<=z. The NOS have a table score worth x. They get an adjustment worth an extra z-x, but the amount of damage caused by the SEWoG is y-x. So you subtract the SEWoG damage from the total damage and get (z-x)-(y-x)=z-y, and then add this to their actual MP score to get x+z-y. This is somewhere between x and z, as expected.

[nige1]

szgyula writes "{SNIP] Screens were in use. 1N was alerted to E (weak, 12-14) and was not alerted to W. E-W uses different defense against weak and strong 1NT openings. 2H was explained as natural, weak bid on both sides. W, as dummy, became aware of this during the play. After the play finished (down 4), W called the director. The director accepted the MI. W claimed that, according to the system, the 2S bid, 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. W claims that in the later case, he would have bid 2N with 15HCP and 1435 distribution with good stoppers in H (QJ9x). The director also accepted this claim. Now comes the funny part. The 2S contract, with double dummy, goes down 2. 2N, with double dummy, goes down 3. Thus, the director rules that 2S is a better contract for the NOS than the 2N, thus, no compensation. W argues that damage was done as the actual result was less favourable, compared to the expected result of 2N (we have a not very advanced pair as NOS). The director invokes 12C1b, saying that the NOS was in a better contract and the fact that they went down 4 is a major mistake, unrelated to the infraction. [SNIP]"

---

IMO ...

• According to local regulations there was MI, so the director may consider a procedural penalty.
• To rule a SEWOG by East needs more convincing evidence than we're given.
• West says that, after over a natural weak weakness take-out, a protective 2♠ has different meanings, depending in the strength of the notrump opener. We are told that the director accepted West's statement. Presumably, the director sought confirmatory evidence -- As Fluffy says, this seems an unlikely agreement.
• The director is convinced by West's argument, that, with correct information, he would correct 2♠ to 2N. This does not necessarily entail an adjustment . In practical play, 2N may be a bit better than 2♠ but not by much. Double-dummy analysis is of little relevance.
• Under current rules, West might protect himself by asking about the strength of the notrump. The world and his wife play transfers over a strong notrump. That might alert an experienced West that the bidding is odd.
• On the evidence presented, the director's "result stands" ruling seems OK, but his reasoning is questionable.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-February-14, 13:20, said:

Here's what happens. Damage occurs when, as a result of an irregularity, the result obtained is worse than the expectation without the irregularity. So here we have a table result which is -200 and the expectation without the irregularity is say -100 for 2NT off 2.

NOS do not receive redress for however much damage was caused by the SEWoG action. Without the SEWoG action the contract would have been 2♥, and let's say this makes 8 tricks for -110. So the SEWoG caused the swing from -110 to -200 and that's the bit they don't get redress for.

So let's say -200 gets you x matchpoints, -110 gets you y and -100 gets you z, with x<=y<=z. The NOS have a table score worth x. They get an adjustment worth an extra z-x, but the amount of damage caused by the SEWoG is y-x. So you subtract the SEWoG damage from the total damage and get (z-x)-(y-x)=z-y, and then add this to their actual MP score to get x+z-y. This is somewhere between x and z, as expected.

I don't believe that this is correct for two reasons. One is that rather odd situation of y < x has caused you to get your signs mixed up. The other is that this method of adjustment, (getting the signs right), makes the NOS suffer the damage of the SEWOG twice over.

Rather curiously with these numbers, with y < x; there is not damage from the SEWOG, rather it woul dhave been profitable had there not been the MI. I think probably when the SEWOG would have been profitable without the MI, we should not take account of it at all, because the adjustment for the SEWOG is only in the damage for it. But you will see that the signs you have given to sizing the "damage" makes it damage, so you have the sign of that wrong.

But this y < x situation is getting us confused, and makes an unusual case. Let's look at a more normal situation with x < y. For example, pretend that without the SEWOG (or MI) they would have got -50, which is better than what they would have got with MI and the SEWOG, surely a more usual situation, so that there is actually self-inflicted damage from the SEWOG, ie from -50 to -100 without the MI.

This philosophy of adjustment you have laid out first adjusts their score from (MP for) -200 to (MP for) -100. But these are both scores with are for what would have happeninged after the SEWOG. So the -100 outcome is an outcome already infected by the damage of the SEWOG. If you then say that the SEWOG cost the effect of (MP for) -50 to (MP for) -100, and charge them that, then you are making them suffer the effect of the SEWOG twice over, because in fact they have already suffered it in the (MP for) 100 score. Indeed it is entirely possible that the difference between (MP for) -50 and (MP for) -100 is larger than (MP for) -200 to (MP for) -100, which gives them a final score worse than (MP for) -200, yet nevertheless they did suffer damage from the MI.

So I think this actually reinforces my belief that I am right, at least until I have some deeper revelation.

[campboy]

I haven't the faintest idea what you are saying. x is the number of matchpoints the NOS would receive for a score of -200, and y is the number of matchpoints they would receive for a score of -110. So x cannot be more than y.

In this instance there were five scores, -200, -200, -200, -200 and -100. I assume this includes the table score. So x=3. If we change this pair's -200 to a -110 they would now get 6 matchpoints, and if we change it to a -100 they would get 7. So y=6 and z=7. After the adjustment they actually get x+z-y which is 4.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-February-18, 12:47, said:

I haven't the faintest idea what you are saying. x is the number of matchpoints the NOS would receive for a score of -200, and y is the number of matchpoints they would receive for a score of -110. So x cannot be more than y.

In this instance there were five scores, -200, -200, -200, -200 and -100. I assume this includes the table score. So x=3. If we change this pair's -200 to a -110 they would now get 6 matchpoints, and if we change it to a -100 they would get 7. So y=6 and z=7. After the adjustment they actually get x+z-y which is 4.

Sorry got the letters mixed up. Do it without letters.

-100 is a better score than -110. It is a strange situation that the expected score without SEWOG, -110, is a better score than the expected score with SEWOG but no MI, ie -100.

So actually the effect of the SEWOG here is "profit", but you have called it damage and charged them for it, when actually it is profit.

That's only the first of the two problems with your method. The other is that you have charged them for the SEWOG twice over. Pretend -110 is -50 instead and perhaps you will see what I mean.

[campboy]

Actually what is strange is that it even makes sense to talk about the score with SEWoG but without the infraction. But it is perfectly normal for the score without SEWoG to lie between the table score and the expected score without the irregularity.

Yes, the expression I gave was simplified for the case where x<=y<=z - the normal case. The amount of damage which was caused by the SEWoG cannot be negative, nor can it be more than all the damage. So in fact the damage caused by the SEWoG is not y-x, but min(max(y-x,0),z-x), and the final adjustment is to z-min(max(y-x,0),z-x). If y<=x then the SEWoG caused no damage and so the adjustment is to z (the full adjustment). If y>=z then all the damage was caused by the SEWoG, so NOS get x (table score).

What you seem to be saying is "were it not for the infraction, the SEWoG wouldn't have caused damage, so we shouldn't deny redress". But this is the normal situation. Suppose OS use UI to bid 4♠, there is a WoG double, and it makes. Were it not for the infraction the WoG action wouldn't have caused any damage, because it would have been impossible. Yet we still deny redress.

Now if your argument is actually "since the SEWoG would have been successful were it not for the infraction we shouldn't consider it a SEWoG in the first place" then that makes a lot more sense to me. I deliberately made no comment as to whether or not it actually was a SEWoG. But if it is a SEWoG then it clearly "contributed to [the] damage", as without it there would be less damage, so we should deny some redress.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-February-19, 14:40, said:

Now if your argument is actually "since the SEWoG would have been successful were it not for the infraction we shouldn't consider it a SEWoG in the first place" then that makes a lot more sense to me. I deliberately made no comment as to whether or not it actually was a SEWoG. But if it is a SEWoG then it clearly "contributed to [the] damage", as without it there would be less damage, so we should deny some redress.

This is not the point I am making. A SEWOG action can sometimes be successful, even if the other side play best bridge. You make a crassly stupid double of what ought to be a solid contract, but it turns out that the contract is always going off due to some weird and unlikely happenstance you could have had no idea of when you doubled - eg declarer can't untangle his communications to cash his copious tricks.

You say that it is common for the expected score with the SEWOG and no MI to be better than the score with no SEWOG and no MI, but cite only the common case where the SEWOG follows the damage-incurring incident. In the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI, that ordering of sizes would be unusual, (it would be the successful gamble mentioned above), and that is the situation we are discussing. That is why I say that, for this sequence of events, this ordering of sizes is unusual, not in the wider case. But you do now seem to acknowledge with your mins and maxes that when the SEWOG would have been profitable but the for the subsequent damage from the prior offence, there should be no adjustment for the SEWOG. Good.

Anyway, this is a side-show from what I consider to be the main problem, which is that you are trying to charge for the SEWOG twice over, in the case of the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI. I'll make the scores a more likely sizing.

If we have:
Table Score -200 > MP 1
Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 4
Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't arise in this scenario) -50 > MP 6

Then, according to you the adjustment for the damage is 3 MP, but the adjustment for the SEWOG is 2. So you'll be trying to give them 2 MP according to your formula.

But this double-charges them for the SEWOG. The MP4 score already incorporates the damage of the SEWOG, it is based upon a sequence of events that is subsequent. So charging them 2 for teh SEWOG on top is double charging them.

And what would you do if it was
Table Score -200 > MP 1
Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 3
Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't occur in this scenario) -50 > MP 6

Now the SEWOG cost is 3, but the damage is only 2, so wipes it out entirely. Are you saying that they are due no restitution at all for the MI that damaged them? Clearly the difference between 6 MP and 1 MP isn't due to the SEWOG, only 3 of it is.

[helene_t]

I don't think EW's explanation of their defense against weak and strong NT is credible. What they probably mean is that against strong NT, a direct overcall is based on shape, not general values, while against weak NT it requires values and may be less shape. So W would have expected a 6-card suit if E had made a direct overcall.

Now E balanced so how is the negative inference from E not overcalling 2♠ immediately affected by the fact that W thought NS were playing strong NT? Probably there is an inference that he rates not to have a six-card suit.

So for several reasons, no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

The laws say that when MI has been given, and damage occurs, the score should be adjusted. There is one caveat: if the NOS subsequently commit a SEWoG not related to the MI, their adjusted score is reduced by the amount of damage it caused to them. The only way in which timing is involved is that 1) the damage occurs after the MI was given, and 2) the SEWoG occurs after the MI was given. The relative timing between the SEWoG and the damage is irrelevant. If the SEWoG is related to the MI, then the SEWoG is irrelevant. If the SEWoG caused no damage, then the SEWoG is irrelevant. What might have happened if the SEWoG had been committed without the MI is irrelevant. What is relevant? This: 1) was there an infraction? 2) did it cause damage? 3) was there a SEWoG subsequent to the infraction and related to it? 4) did the SEWoG cause additional damage?

[campboy]

I think the source of the disagreement is this. The damage can be broken up into three parts (some of which may be empty): that which is caused by the infraction and independent of the SEWoG, that which is caused by the SEWoG and independent of the infraction, and that which is caused by both. I would only give redress to the first, and I think that is consistent both with the wording of the law and what normally happens. Say there is a wild double of an illegally-reached contract. There is no damage caused only by the SEWoG, since the SEWoG could not have happened without the infraction. Yet we deny redress for the damage which was caused by both.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-20, 12:06, said:

The laws say that when MI has been given, and damage occurs, the score should be adjusted. There is one caveat: if the NOS subsequently commit a SEWoG not related to the MI, their adjusted score is reduced by the amount of damage it caused to them.

This is not the case. A serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction to deny redress, but a wild or gambling action does not (and, normally, is not).

[blackshoe]

Campboy, you seem to be saying the same thing I said.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-February-20, 16:03, said:

I think the source of the disagreement is this. The damage can be broken up into three parts (some of which may be empty): that which is caused by the infraction and independent of the SEWoG, that which is caused by the SEWoG and independent of the infraction, and that which is caused by both. I would only give redress to the first, and I think that is consistent both with the wording of the law and what normally happens. Say there is a wild double of an illegally-reached contract. There is no damage caused only by the SEWoG, since the SEWoG could not have happened without the infraction. Yet we deny redress for the damage which was caused by both.

OK. That is at least a consistent argument, on a particular defensible interpretation of the law, and lays clear the nature of the disagreement. Though if that is your view of the law you should refuse to give redress rather than apply your formula.

If this is the law, then I think it is bad law. Damage occurs at the moment when you rely on MI, not at the point when it is given. Apparently the law will choose either to protect you from that damage, or not protect you from it, according to what might have happened between the point when the MI is given, and the point when you rely on it. You can however obtain protection (subject to any subsequent SEWOG) if you ensure that the information is fresh when you rely on it. That seems to suggest that a player, to ensure the protection from the damage of MI, should ask for a restatement of any information on which he will rely at every moment at which he will use it, which would be very tedious in practice. The law would be improved in its consistency if MI were deemed to have been given at the moment of relying on it, and not just at the original time of stating it.

There is a sort-of logic to it. If we think of SEWOGs as being such terrible doings they really are an indication that the player is no longer playing bridge in good faith, which some people would argue is the correct interpretation, then probably the director can say "when you play like this I no longer protect you". Unfortunately plenty of directors think SEWOGs are plays that are merely demonstrably sub-optimal.

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-21, 05:00, said:

There is a sort-of logic to it. If we think of SEWOGs as being such terrible doings they really are an indication that the player is no longer playing bridge in good faith, which some people would argue is the correct interpretation, then probably the director can say "when you play like this I no longer protect you". Unfortunately plenty of directors think SEWOGs are plays that are merely demonstrably sub-optimal.

I think the lawmakers meant "play like an idiot", but didn't feel such language would be appropriate.