Re: Washington Appeal N9
Jeff Ford <[email protected]> Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:23:49 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJ0x7rNPhL9D0vSoHUhv7N5ACkPrVz4HyG8XdsmKqBUhX-1hGw@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============0404979089== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094200205789753e1" --00000000000094200205789753e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Adam, I think you are missing the point - the panelists were suggesting a split score. I thought that wild or gambling was supposed to be computed as Herman described, not just by giving a split score. Jeff On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:21 AM Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Two of the six panelists agree with you that Law 12c1(e)(ii) should apply: > "The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage > as is self- inflicted." > > The others seem not to have considered the issue, just as the TD and > "Panel" (of one) seem not to have considered it. > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM Jeff Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Appeal is part of http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf >> >> The gist of the hand is that E/W made a bid (4S) that was ruled illegal >> because of UI, and that N/S doubled the final contract. Some of the >> commentators suggested that the double was wild or gambling so N/S should >> keep their result on the hand of 4SX making exactly. >> >> Is this the correct application of law? I thought that when adjudicating >> a case like this that the gambling side was supposed to keep the part of >> their result that came from the gamble, but not the entirety of the bad >> result including the infraction of the other side. >> >> As this case was from a BAM hand, this would involve looking at the >> difference between comparing with the other table at +620 and at +990 where >> it's possible the double actually had no effect. >> >> Jeff >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > --00000000000094200205789753e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Adam, I think you are missing the point - the panelists we= re suggesting a split score. I thought that wild or gambling was supposed t= o be computed as Herman described, not just by giving a split score.<div><b= r></div><div>Jeff</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= <div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:21 AM Adam Wildavsky <<a href= =3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><bl= ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #= ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Two of the six=C2=A0panelists = agree with you that Law 12c1(e)(ii) should apply: "The non-offending s= ide does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self- inflict= ed." <br><br>The others seem not to have considered the issue, just as= the TD and "Panel" (of one) seem not to have considered it.</div= ><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir= =3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM Jeff Ford <<a href=3D"mailto:j= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br><= /div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div d= ir=3D"ltr">Appeal is part of=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks= /2016Washington.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016W= ashington.pdf</a><div><br></div><div>The gist of the hand is that E/W made = a bid (4S) that was ruled illegal because of UI, and that N/S doubled the f= inal contract. Some of the commentators suggested that the double was wild = or gambling so N/S should keep their result on the hand of 4SX making exact= ly.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this the correct application of law? I thou= ght that when adjudicating a case like this that the gambling side was supp= osed to keep the part of their result that came from the gamble, but not th= e entirety of the bad result including the infraction of the other side.</d= iv><div><br></div><div>As this case was from a BAM hand, this would involve= looking at the difference between comparing with the other table at=C2=A0+= 620 and at=C2=A0+990 where it's possible the double actually had no eff= ect.</div><div><br></div><div>Jeff</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><= /div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"= margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> _______________________________________________<br> Blml mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> <a href=3D"http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml" rel=3D"noreferrer"= target=3D"_blank">http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml</a><br> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> --00000000000094200205789753e1-- --===============0404979089== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --===============0404979089==--