[helene_t]

wank, on 2016-February-25, 11:10, said:

noone does that outside england.

And Denmark. Don't they do it in other UK countries, and New Zealand?

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-March-23, 09:27, said:

And Denmark. Don't they do it in other UK countries, and New Zealand?

We certainly did it in Scotland when I was playing there.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 08:55, said:

That's too picky even for me. "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So what is the damage? Clearly it's the difference between the actual result and the expected result absent the infraction. How else would you define it?

I have no idea how the WBF wants to define it. But I would not define damage by comparing apples and oranges. At the least, it would be a comparison between the change in expectation. For instance:

Damage- that which the NOS has been deprived, or the OS gains, as a consequence of an irregularity; where (for the NOS) it includes the being tangibly and improperly (a) led to act on bridge inferences that were materially different from those absent the irregularity or (b) deprived of declaring or defending a contract that was earned;
Adjustments may be made when the expected outcome (of the NOS) attributed the irregularity is less than the expected outcome absent the irregularity; however, there is no damage subject to adjustment when the result is greater than or equal to the expected outcome absent the irregularity even if the definition of damage is satisfied.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2016-March-23, 14:00, said:

I have no idea how the WBF wants to define it. But I would not define damage by comparing apples and oranges. At the least, it would be a comparison between the change in expectation. For instance:

Damage- that which the NOS has been deprived, or the OS gains, as a consequence of an irregularity; where (for the NOS) it includes the being tangibly and improperly (a) led to act on bridge inferences that were materially different from those absent the irregularity or (b) deprived of declaring or defending a contract that was earned;
Adjustments may be made when the expected outcome (of the NOS) attributed the irregularity is less than the expected outcome absent the irregularity; however, there is no damage subject to adjustment when the result is greater than or equal to the expected outcome absent the irregularity even if the definition of damage is satisfied.

I wouldn't define it by comparing apples and oranges either, and if you're saying I did that I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion. As for your definition, it's unclear, to start with, too wordy, and contains stuff which has nothing to do with a definition to boot.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 16:37, said:

As for your definition, it's unclear, to start with, too wordy, and contains stuff which has nothing to do with a definition to boot.

There's a surprise!

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 16:37, said:

I wouldn't define it by comparing apples and oranges either, and if you're saying I did that I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion. As for your definition, it's unclear, to start with, too wordy, and contains stuff which has nothing to do with a definition to boot.

Maybe a soliloquy is in order.

Consider a generic example:

W
1H-2S-3H-*P
P - 3S-P -P
4H-P -P - X
PPP

1H= 5+H, if balanced 2.5+QT
2S= preemptive, does not promise (or deny) forward going strength
3H= invitational values in hearts (no assertion of speed bid causing tempo break)
* = pause of 3-4s (normal tempo of .5s)
3S= not defined by system

After play W asserts 3S was an infraction given that the pause of S suggests that he has working values, and after N's preempt N would have no reason to act again absent UI (indeed, N's hand suggests that it could be disastrous to reopen; and south- spades and hearts, and honors that he needn't have had for his bidding).

It is reasonable, upon verification of the efficacy of the assertion, to conclude that 3S was an infraction having the consequence of preventing the other side from declaring 3H. In other words, the expectation prior to the infraction was 3HW compared to the expectation after the infraction of 3SN. The difference is damage.

For this hand the limit of the cards was 2S. Which is to say that the expected outcome of the hand absent the infraction was 3H-1. After the infraction the expectation was 3S-1. Therefore, the infraction had the effect of breaking the connection to its damage. The principle of continuity states that once the connection to damage is broken it remains broken (it does not matter if it is broken by the NOS or the OS).

The connection having been broken, there is no expectation of a score adjustment; notably, west's judgment (also known as his bidding system) to carry on merely results in a score that is earned, however painful that may be when he achieves his 8 tricks.

[barmar]

The Laws currently make an exception when the NOS causes their own damage due to SEWOG. So if the 4♥ call were considered to fall into that criteria, we'd say that they broke the connection to the infraction.

But by limiting the exception to just SEWOG, the Lawmakers clearly indicated that the NOS is indemnified against lesser errors after an infraction. If West believes North's bid, which suggests that he had an unusual hand for his original WJO, he could be excused for taking this phantom sacrifice. And absent the infraction, he never would have been in the position to make this error.

That's why damage is defined the way it is.

Also, I suspect that trying to compare two hypothetical results may be a bit too abstract for most directors. It's much more tractable if you take the actual result as given, and only have to imagine the hypothetical result without the infraction.

[Fluffy]

I Always theough the card play didn't start untill a lead was made. And I didn't see West nor East make an opening lead. I would treat all cards as exposed during bidding.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2016-March-25, 04:44, said:

I would treat all cards as exposed during bidding.

Technically they have been exposed during the clarification period, which is the part of the auction period between the end of the auction and the beginning of the play period.

[Fluffy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-25, 06:31, said:

Technically they have been exposed during the clarification period, which is the part of the auction period between the end of the auction and the beginning of the play period.

I am a bit rusty on rules, but you could also argue the 3♥ bidder never passed 3♠.