Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 5N would be choice of slams - a good hand with alternative(s) to hearts. So 5N then 6 over partner's likely 6 would show majors, not a grand slam try.
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass = NF, not a competitive hand
D = Gametry
3 = Competitive

1-lvl overcall + cue raise didn't indicate more partnership strength than opening bid + simple raise. So gametry doubles are still equally useful.
Feb. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IF partner's double is just clubs (and I think it takes a specific agreement for it not to be), then underleadíng the A is an insult. No way he has good help (queen) for us there - the most natural suit for us to lead in this sequence.
Feb. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X takeout when they jump.
Feb. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, good read.

One comment: The rules about UI are normative - they specify what the player should or shouldn't do.

It is important to keep that aspect, when we discuss the interpretation of the law terms. If we shift to “was there a plausible link” or the like, then the focus is quite different. The big trap is getting a hindsight view, where opinions easily are biased by the actual hand.

When we rule these cases (and when we have UI problems ourselves), we should evaluate at the time of the decision, which options are legal and which are not. Square and simple.
Feb. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'The score for them of -1430 is related to the infraction'.

What does that sentense mean? It is the error that need to be related to the infraction, if that part of the rule should be used, not the score.

Are you supporting EEd's view? I'm unsure what you mean.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree that the error could be said to be “related” to the infraction, because he got upset. That is too subjective. If we carry that logic on, what about the player who claims that he made the error because he was busy thinking about what happened? It would be the same and too far out.

I think we need a relation within the game.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I follow you a lot, I also get confused.

Law 16B1a says we can't chose among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI.

Where did that criterion “demonstrably suggested” go? I can see “no plausible link” and “correlate with” in your post, but is that the same? In your first post I (like Dean?) read it as if that criterion was left out, but I don't think that is what you meant.

I think we are mudding the water when we invent our own ways of describing the rules instead of just using the established terms.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is right to use procedural penalties for “adjusting” to what outcome one think is fair, when one judges that normal adjustment rules can't lead to that result.

A penalty should reflect the seriousness of the infraction, that's it.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good summary Aviv. I would still be more inclined to let table play stand, if the level of contract seems to be of no direct relevance for the play. But I don't think we are far apart.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True.

In the revoke case, the damage was selfinflicted subsequently so the nonoffending side keeps their score.

But from the offending side's point of view: their lottery ticket came out. They couldn't care less, if K was onside, dropped at the table or lost in the bar while buying a beer. They took 12 tricks, chalked up 1430 and gained by making an illegal bid. This advantage should be taken from them.

Split score.

Edit: Reply to M. Rosenberg
Feb. 25, 2014
Michael Askgaard edited this comment Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm also out. I disagree that the infraction could be said not to have resulted in an advantage for NS, when they chalked up 1430.

Note that the objective (per 12B) is to remove any advantage gained by the offending side through its infraction.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ John

I know I'm not that Michael, but…

Law 16B. Extraneous Information from Partner
(3)… The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely reasonable criticism. I don't have a strong opinion.

Yes, the nonoffenders run a risk of making a serious error against a contract they shouldn't be playing, but we are only talking about huge blunders, and those could be made against any contract. So averagely they shouldn't be running a bigger risk than else.

Generally I think it is fair that serious errors are not remedied by the TD. They should still play bridge.

It disturbs me that there is so little consensus about UI and MI cases. Look at the votes. Roughly speaking 1/5 on each of 4 options and then 1/5 abstensions. And not that it is a surprise. Maybe the rules are too difficult.
Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Michael

I agree with almost all your thoughts. But one point:

You have an example with an illegal 4 save over 4. You state that the egregious error taking the penalty down from 500 to 300 is irrelevant, since there is a correction to 620 coming.

Under WBF interpretations it is not so, see the WBF commentary I linked to above, p 1-2.

In WBF jurisdiction the nonoffenders keep the minuspoints their serious error cost. They are not compensated for that. It works like this:

300 and 500 are each compared to the result at the other table (or the scoreboard at mps) to determine how much the serious error happened to cost. Maybe it was a “5 imp error” or a “17% error”.

The nonoffending side then gets a correction to “620 minus 5 imps” or “620 minus 17%”. For the offending side it will be 620.

Feb. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Textbook takeout double.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partnership bidding (Robson/Segal), p 377. 1-p-1-3 double is about that hand type.

Absolute doubles (Nilsland).
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uhh yes, an old chestnut: A player uses UI, but when dummy hits the indicated assets are surprisingly not there. But due to a miracle, he makes anyway.

Fortunately this scenario only seems to happen on film.

Was the bid still illegal and should the result be adjusted?
Yes I think so. Infraction + resulting damage, even if south makes in a different way than he could expect.

But the director should be lenient to rule that there was no usable UI for these actual players. Had this episode happened in the club where I teach, south would have had no usable UI, since the tank could literally mean anything. So there it would be wrong to adjust.

Whatever west concluded is on his own bill obviously, so EW can't be compensated through MI rules.

Funny story btw.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting, Barry.

The question is: Are there still room for all those different opinions within the law after the significant clarification in 2007?

I don't think so. The new 12C1b and the wbf commentary to the rule with examples has in my opinion settled the position of the laws. Curiously it has landed on a fourth position, not one of the three you list.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ John

16B3 says about THESE infractions (using UI from partner), that the score should be adjusted if the infraction resulted in an advantage for the offending side.

Now, David Y argues (as I understand) that in spite of NS chalking up +1430 the infraction (bidding 6) wasn't an advantage, because the contract made only because of the error from the defense.

I don't follow that argument. The RESULT was +1430, which is better than +680, so bidding 6 did RESULT in an advantage, simple as that imo. I find this view in accordance with the WBF commentary, I refered to.

(It was then argued that were are talking ACBL rules not WBF. If the rules differ, fine, I will withdraw from the discussion, because I have no interest in discussing ACBL specials. But I doubt they differ.)

So the point is that the offending side can never keep their good score, when they have used UI from partner (16B3). In this case there are therefore 2 possible rulings:
a) 5 for both sides or b) split score 5/6.

We should use b) if we deem the defensive error to be “serious” (12C1b) otherwise a). Both are sensible imo, but I prefer b).
Feb. 24, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top