[Fluffy]

---

IMPs.

There was no alert at all on the bidding, East calls director after the 4♠ bid wich he says is suggested by the lack of alert on 3♥.

Play continues and the play of the hand is far from perfect, ♣K lead, declarer wins ♣A and plays 3 rounds of hearts, East ruffs with ♠6 and dummy overruffs with ♠K (not best), then ruffs another diamond in hand, and plays another heart ruffed with ♠J. east cashes ♣Q and upon realicing declarer has 3 plays a low club for partner to ruff with ♠9 for the heart promotion, but west plays ♦K giving away the contract.

4♠ went down at the other table.

[mr1303]

I don't think that qualifies as SEWoG, so I adjust back to 3nt. If I'm allowed to I give a split score, some percentage of it making, some of it going off. I'll allow others to give exact percentages.

[blackshoe]

I think you mean weighted (a weighting of various possible outcomes) rather than split (the adjusted result for one side differs from the adjusted result for the other side).

It doesn't matter what happened at the other table.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't give any proportion of 3NT=.

Although you can make it legitimately (win the diamond lead, lose a spade, lose a diamond to West, win the return, cash spades, cash ♣A, play three rounds of hearts to endplay East), it requires the sort of card-reading that doesn't usually go with forgetting Smolen.

Other ways to make involve an unwise heart lead or a later misdefence. I don't think we should be ruling that a proportion of the time the non-offenders would have made a mistake, even if it's true.

[Fluffy]

so what would you weight in?

[campboy]

I think you can give a proportion of NOS making a mistake, but it should be sympathetically weighted. In order to give, say, 20% of 3NT= I'd need to think it would make about 1/3 of the time in practice.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-16, 03:33, said:

so what would you weight in?

I meant that I'd make it 100% of 3NT-1.

[Fluffy]

deep finese said that 3NT was unmakeable and I didnt look much into it.

What I wondered is if you should punish EW for missdefending 4♠. What I am referring to is that many bad directors feel less compelled to adjust a score after a missdefence. And somehow declarer missplaying the contract, wich is cold on proper technique (discard instead of overruff) could lead to her getting a better score, or a worse one to his opponents wich could be direct contestants. This should be contradictory.

[campboy]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 04:51, said:

What I wondered is if you should punish EW for missdefending 4♠. What I am referring to is that many bad directors feel less compelled to adjust a score after a missdefence. And somehow declarer missplaying the contract, wich is cold on proper technique (discard instead of overruff) could lead to her getting a better score, or a worse one to his opponents wich could be direct contestants. This should be contradictory.

I don't see how misplaying will lead to a better score. If making the contract you are in scores worse than a potential adjustment then there is damage, and should be an adjustment, whether you make or not; if it scores better then making your contract is better than going off and getting an adjustment.

You shouldn't penalise EW for misdefending, but their play at the table might be taken into account when judging how many tricks might be made in 3NT.

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-17, 04:51, said:

deep finese said that 3NT was unmakeable and I didnt look much into it.

What I wondered is if you should punish EW for missdefending 4♠. What I am referring to is that many bad directors feel less compelled to adjust a score after a missdefence. And somehow declarer missplaying the contract, wich is cold on proper technique (discard instead of overruff) could lead to her getting a better score, or a worse one to his opponents wich could be direct contestants. This should be contradictory.

It may be true that many TDs feel compelled to punish the victims for not playing perfect bridge. This is basically unfair and generally illegal, and seems to come from a growing idea around the world in many fields of endeavour that victims are to blame. Look at rape cases where the first question asked is how the victim was dressed as though that ever justifies rape.

Consider at two tables where N/S make a mistake and give MI. In one case they "own up", tell declarer at the end of the auction, and declarer makes 3NT. At the other table they don't and declarer goes off. Now, instead of just giving declarer his contract, many people seem to want to avoid declarer making, especially if he might have done better. This seems horrendously unfair to me.

There are two cases which the Laws do seek to redress. One is the double shot where a victim tries to take advantage of an infraction by gambling, assuming if the gamble fails he will get an adjustment to his original equity. Despite this being a normal approach in most sports it is frowned on in bridge. I never understand why.

The other view is that a victim should at least continue to play bridge, so should not get redress for something totally ridiculous, for example if he revokes. These two ideas are enshrined in Law 12C1B, which says the non-offenders lose redress for SEWoG actions. However the offenders still get the full adjustment against them.

SEWoG actions are extremely rare, and should only be considered in extreme cases. In the normal case where a victim has merely tried his best but his best was not perfect, he is legally and morally treated as a victim, and should be given a full adjustment. He should receive sympathy not ill-treatment.