[benlessard]

---

West had a long hesitation after 3D and made a clear BIT. East clearly bid 4S using BIT and UI passing instead of 4S is clearly LA.

NS Grossly (Serious error) blew 2 tricks in the defense and 4S is making, 4D would have been making. Under 12c1b the proper score is -390/-130. However a serious error in 4S is a lot more damaging than the same error in 4D. So I think -100 (for 4D-2 might be a more equitable result here.

[aguahombre]

Not sure I understand to whom the minus 100 should be applied, but for "Changing Laws & Regulations" purposes, I have always thought that in a case like this where there is a roll-back, the NOS should not be deemed to have defended a contract which should not have existed.

And, if I were The God, instead of a lesser God, it would be +130/-130..not applying SEWog to the non-existant 4S contract nor haloing it to the 4D contract.

[sfi]

I don't think the self-inflicted component is calculated the way you think. My understanding is you would adjust the IMP (or matchpoint) score rather than the raw score. For simplicity, assume the other table passed in the board in your example. We can all agree that E-W get -130 or -4 IMPS. N-S's serious error cost them 12 IMPs (+3 -> -9), so their adjusted score is -8 IMPs (+4 for the +130 minus the 12 for the self-inflicted damage).

When such a score adjustment applies, this seems reasonable if a bit complicated. I don't understand where -100 comes from though - that just seems like picking a score out of the air.

But mostly, I agree that the adjustment would be +130/-130. The defence needs to be pretty bad for N-S to not get full rectification.

[blackshoe]

Lot of questions here. Was it IMPs? Or was it MPs? Or was it VPs? And did the defense really commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 15:04, said:

Lot of questions here. Was it IMPs? Or was it MPs? Or was it VPs? And did the defense really commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction?

And the Director's very first question should be: Was STOP procedures properly used?
(Surprisingly often this important point is ignored by players and forgotten by Directors.)

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:57, said:

And the Director's very first question should be: Was STOP procedures properly used?
(Surprisingly often this important point is ignored by players and forgotten by Directors.)

When the OP stipulates a significant break in tempo, we may assume there was a significant break in tempo. Get over the stop card.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-17, 17:24, said:

When the OP stipulates a significant break in tempo, we may assume there was a significant break in tempo. Get over the stop card.

I don't know how many times I have discovered that the alleged BIT was within the prescribed STOP periode and that STOP procedures were not followed. "Case dismissed".

[campboy]

The problem with your suggested approach is that it is easy to construct situations where a serious error in the contract before the irregularity would be more damaging. Suppose at all vul NS bid to 4♥, which makes exactly. EW use UI to bid 4♠ over this, which is doubled and should go 2 off. But defenders revoke, and get +200 instead of +500. A revoke in 4♥ would have left them with an even worse score (-100), so what would you adjust to here?

(And as sfi says, the loss for self-inflicted damage is calculated in IMPs or MPs, not in terms of raw score.)

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 03:36, said:

I don't know how many times I have discovered that the alleged BIT was within the prescribed STOP periode and that STOP procedures were not followed. "Case dismissed".

I refer to forum threads. If the OP states the BIT occurred, we should be discussing from there, not challenging his premise.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-18, 05:25, said:

I refer to forum threads. If the OP states the BIT occurred, we should be discussing from there, not challenging his premise.

Fair enough for a (hypothetical) discussion.

I am just reminding that the Director when called to an alleged BIT must ascertain that STOP procedures have been used and that the hesitation was in excess of the allotted STOP pause.

This point is so often overlooked that I find the remainder in order every time.

[ahydra]

Does it even make any sense to apply the SE to the original contract (4D in the OP)? I don't think it does - they are two different contracts with two completely different sequences of plays. There's no reason to suspect the SE would have happened in the original contract.

Either we adjust to EW +130 (i.e. NS -4 IMPs, EW +4 IMPs) for both sides, or if we do want to take the SE into account then sfi's calculation of NS -8 IMPs, EW +4 IMPs is correct - simply doing the subtraction of the self-inflicted damage.

(If I can ask a question: suppose this is a head-to-head match, what is the final score for that board? EW +12?)

ahydra

[campboy]

ahydra, on 2014-December-18, 05:55, said:

(If I can ask a question: suppose this is a head-to-head match, what is the final score for that board? EW +12?)

You would just leave it as EW +4 and NS -8 if converting to VPs and then VPs for the two sides may add up to less than 20. In a knockout situation, if both teams end up with negative IMPs the team who "lose" by less go through (this is equivalent to a 6-IMP swing on the board).

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 03:36, said:

I don't know how many times I have discovered that the alleged BIT was within the prescribed STOP periode and that STOP procedures were not followed. "Case dismissed".

I don't understand this.

Are you saying that if I don't use the STOP card, LHO can take 2 minutes to make his bid, and it's not treated as a significant hesitation?

It seems to me that failure to use the STOP card can only be used as a defense if the next player bids too quickly, not if he bids too slowly.

[blackshoe]

I think what Sven is saying is that players will claim that an opponent 'broke tempo' when in fact he was within the tempo required by a skip bid regulation. Failure to use the stop card does not, at least in some jurisdictions, absolve a player of the requirement to pause before calling over a skip bid. So if the pause was "about ten seconds" for example, then it was not a BIT as alleged. Put it another way: a side does not get to use its failure to follow proper procedure to justify a claim of BIT.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 05:48, said:

Fair enough for a (hypothetical) discussion.

I am just reminding that the Director when called to an alleged BIT must ascertain that STOP procedures have been used and that the hesitation was in excess of the allotted STOP pause.

This point is so often overlooked that I find the remainder in order every time.

I say to the TD, "My leg is broken. May I have a stationary table today?" Answer: "Did you see a doctor and have xrays?"

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-18, 10:34, said:

I say to the TD, "My leg is broken. May I have a stationary table today?" Answer: "Did you see a doctor and have xrays?"

I take that comment as an insult

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 10:25, said:

I think what Sven is saying is that players will claim that an opponent 'broke tempo' when in fact he was within the tempo required by a skip bid regulation. Failure to use the stop card does not, at least in some jurisdictions, absolve a player of the requirement to pause before calling over a skip bid. So if the pause was "about ten seconds" for example, then it was not a BIT as alleged. Put it another way: a side does not get to use its failure to follow proper procedure to justify a claim of BIT.

It is important to realize that the purpose of the STOP procedure is to protect the player making a skip bid, not the player to call next and who probably needs time to consider his call.

If the skip bidder fails to protect his side with a correct STOP procedure then he has a very weak case when subsequently claiming BIT. (The argument about 2 minutes pause in such cases deserves of course no comment.)

Correct procedure is that he shall signal to his LHO by retracting the STOP card or saying "Continue" (or words to that effect) when (in his opinion) the correct time for thought has expired. LHO is then supposed to make his call without further delay (except that he is always entitled to a net delay of at least 10 Seconds even if the signal comes earlier).

(I am aware that there has been jurisdictions where the skip bidder was only supposed to warn LHO that a pause was required but the duty to measure out the correct delay was on LHO. Such procedure is valueless because it does not give LHO the time to really think, he must concentrate on measuring out 10 Seconds, and I am not willing to enter into any discussion related to jurisdictions where such practice might still exist.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-December-18, 11:05, said:

Correct procedure is that he shall signal to his LHO by retracting the STOP card or saying "Continue" (or words to that effect) when (in his opinion) the correct time for thought has expired. LHO is then supposed to make his call without further delay (except that he is always entitled to a net delay of at least 10 Seconds even if the signal comes earlier).

Not in the ACBL, it's not.

pran, on 2014-December-18, 11:05, said:

(I am aware that there has been jurisdictions where the skip bidder was only supposed to warn LHO that a pause was required but the duty to measure out the correct delay was on LHO. Such procedure is valueless because it does not give LHO the time to really think, he must concentrate on measuring out 10 Seconds, and I am not willing to enter into any discussion related to jurisdictions where such practice might still exist.

Well, if your mind is closed, so be it. But "correct procedure" in a matter of regulation is defined by the Regulating Authority, not by you.

[pran]

So what is the purpose of the STOP procedure in ACBL? Who shall benefit from the imposed 10 seconds delay in the auction and how?

[benlessard]

Quote

I don't think the self-inflicted component is calculated the way you think. My understanding is you would adjust the IMP (or matchpoint) score rather than the raw score.

Yes, your way is more precise since its imps-ed and take into account what happen at the other table, but i didnt want to enter another table into the discussion. The difference is often small if its a normal contract at the other table.

ex
If we assume that they are in 4D making +130/-130 at the other table, 4S-2 for +100 is "stealing" one imps. So the damage inflicted by the infraction is one imps.

-420/-130 vs +130/-130 (NS self inflicted damage) is -11 imps but +1 imps is because of the offender infraction. so its -10 imps for the NS in the op table. While using -390 and +130 equal -11 imps.

Quote

And the Director's very first question should be: Was STOP procedures properly used?
(Surprisingly often this important point is ignored by players and forgotten by Directors.)

Yes assume that the stop was used unless its specifically mentioned.

Quote

The problem with your suggested approach is that it is easy to construct situations where a serious error in the contract before the irregularity would be more damaging. Suppose at all vul NS bid to 4♥, which makes exactly. EW use UI to bid 4♠ over this, which is doubled and should go 2 off. But defenders revoke, and get +200 instead of +500. A revoke in 4♥ would have left them with an even worse score (-100), so what would you adjust to here?

Very good point, I would need to change the rule so that the self inflicted damage is on the contract that provide the less damages for the non-offender.

Im looking at a solution that keep the 12c1b spirit (punish Sewog) but make it more palatable. As it is now less than 10% think 12c1b is a fair rule, I think its an ok rule overall but its not fair on some specific hands.