Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6
Volker Walther <[email protected]> Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:50:38 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 25.02.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Herman De Wael: > And we accept the outcome of North's infraction (...) because it was impossible to cause damage. > (...) > And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was > some damage after all! > > Herman. > These sentences look like a contradiction to me. Volker Am 25.02.2018 um 14:37 schrieb Herman De Wael: > The points Volker made are perfectly correct, and I accept them, so I > must have made my point unclearly. > > What I intended to say is that if we accept the outcome of North's > "infraction", then we must also accept that North makes it. > > And we accept the outcome of North's infraction not becaue by chance it > did not cause damage, but because it was impossible to cause damage. > > We issue PP's over and above adjustments for infractions which a > competitor makes, often withoug knowing it will be an infraction. That > is not the cause here. North knows very well that he should not tell > South what to bid, and he does it anyway. There is no need for a PP in > order to educate North. Nor is there any need for a PP because North > could have been mistaken in thinking it did not matter. We all agree > that it did not. > > That is why I say there seems to me no need for a PP. > > And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was > some damage after all! > > Herman. > > Volker Walther wrote: >> Am 24.02.2018 um 14:55 schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> Look, >>> >>> We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H. >>> We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at >>> the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H. >>> >>> So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect? >> >> Because there was no ill effect and therefore no adjustment! >> >> The purpose of a procedure penalty is to stress that there was an >> intolerable infraction. If the infraction caused an ill effect, there >> will be an adjusted score, making the culprit feeling penalized. >> >> An adjustment should take away any advantage that may be caused by the >> infraction. In many cases this leads to an indirect penalty. Because >> attempting to take away any advantage gained by the infraction the >> adjustment takes away more than the actual benefit. >> (After receiving UI the score is changed from N3NT to W3H undoubled, >> despite the fact that W3H doubled is an LA as well) >> >> In these common cases there is no need for a PP. >> >> But we should ensure that they offending side will not do this >> infraction again, especially if they did not benefit from the >> infraction. And therefore we need PPs. >> >> I think any infraction should be covered by a PP, at least a warning. >> But after a severe rectification a PP can be omitted. >> >> >> By the way: Norths action may have caused damage! When North said that >> he will convert to 7S anyway, everybody knows that South's bid is >> becoming completely meaningless. So E/W can take no conclusion from the >> call S actually chooses. This may not have caused damage in the actual >> case, but if is a structural benefit form North's infraction. >> >> Volker >> >> >> >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> It is indeed. >>>> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least. >>>> >>>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>>> Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Herman De Wael >>>> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46 >>>> Til: blml <[email protected]> >>>> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6 >>>> >>>> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark. >>>> >>>> brian wrote: >>>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >>>>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score. North >>>>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific >>>>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which >>>>>> restores equity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes >>>>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would >>>>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out >>>>> of rotation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory >>>>>> Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is >>>>>> whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the >>>>>> score. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hills >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the >>>>>> auction? >>>>>> > Bill >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Sent from my iPad >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has >>>>>> just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking >>>>>> tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing >>>>>> that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any >>>>>> burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As >>>>>> advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The Director ruled: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken >>>>>> tempo before doubling 7D. >>>>>> >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S. >>>>>> >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested >>>>>> removing to 7S. >>>>>> >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The Appeals Committee ruled: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not >>>>>> actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose >>>>>> any call. >>>>>> >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best wishes, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Richard Hills >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> Blml mailing list >>>>>> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Blml mailing list >>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Blml mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>>>> http://www.avg.com >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml