Re: Washington Appeal N9
Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:44:12 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHkRE_33f2AUKSi_GY=-Eu13u5e2S-Kt8V7Ebn+JE_TT5cSqpw@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============0332463070== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055df0d0578fb5c7a" --00000000000055df0d0578fb5c7a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Laurie has put it accurately. I oversimplified. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Laurie Kelso <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes Jeff you are correct in that 12C1(e) does involve more than just > giving a 'bad/bad' split score. The fact that this was a BAM event will > lead to some simplification and, depending upon the result at the other > table, it might at least some of the time devolve back to just a lose/lose > board. > > However if we assume that the result at the other table was E/W +650, then > it becomes very easy to separate out the damage due to the UI infraction > from the later damage due to the silly double. The original infraction > (from a N/S perspective) converted a winning board into a tied board. The > subsequent double then changed the tie into a loss. > > So on this occasion, if we accept that the double really does qualify > under 12C1(e), then the final adjustment would be a loss for E/W (returning > their score back to 3SW +200) and a tie for N/S (in effect 'win' minus 'the > difference between draw and loss'). > > Laurie > > On 20/10/2018 3:23 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: > > 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 >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing [email protected]://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --00000000000055df0d0578fb5c7a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Laurie has put it accurately. I oversimplified.</div><br><= div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM = Laurie Kelso <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]= </a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= 0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> =20 =20 =20 <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> <br> Yes Jeff you are correct in that 12C1(e) does involve more than just giving a 'bad/bad' split score.=C2=A0 The fact that this was a = BAM event will lead to some simplification and, depending upon the result at the other table, it might at least some of the time devolve back to just a lose/lose board.<br> <br> However if we assume that the result at the other table was E/W +650, then it becomes very easy to separate out the damage due to the UI infraction from the later damage due to the silly double.=C2=A0 The original infraction (from a N/S perspective) converted a winning board into a tied board.=C2=A0 The subsequent double then changed the t= ie into a loss.<br> <br> So on this occasion, if we accept that the double really does qualify under 12C1(e), then the final adjustment would be a loss for E/W (returning their score back to 3SW +200) and a tie for N/S (in effect 'win' minus 'the difference between draw and loss= 9;).<br> <br> Laurie<br> <br> <div class=3D"m_-1024613528549391879moz-cite-prefix">On 20/10/2018 3:23= AM, Jeff Ford wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> =20 <div dir=3D"ltr">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. <div><br> </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]" target=3D"_blank">adam@t= ameware.com</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote 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 tha= t Law 12c1(e)(ii) should apply: "The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self- inflicted." <br> <br> The others seem not to have considered the issue, just as the TD and "Panel" (of one) seem not to have consider= ed it.</div> <br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM Jeff Ford <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">j= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo= rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir=3D"ltr">Appeal is part of=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://web= 2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://web2.acbl= .org/casebooks/2016Washington.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 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.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>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.</div> <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 effect.</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;bo= rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> _______________________________________________<br> Blml mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">Blml@rtfl= b.org</a><br> <a href=3D"http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml" rel= =3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/b= lml</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <fieldset class=3D"m_-1024613528549391879mimeAttachmentHeader"></fiel= dset> <br> <pre>_______________________________________________ Blml mailing list <a class=3D"m_-1024613528549391879moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a> <a class=3D"m_-1024613528549391879moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://lis= ts.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.rtflb.or= g/mailman/listinfo/blml</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> </div> _______________________________________________<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> --00000000000055df0d0578fb5c7a-- --===============0332463070== 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 --===============0332463070==--