[nige1]

bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 16:31, said:

A pity that people are not interested in this but I shall persevere, because an interesting legal point occurred to me.
Suppose you had decided to adjust, as I did, but had also decided that East's 5♠ was SEWoG - wild, in fact - which Jeffrey did not agree with, and I did not decide at the time. Please accept those two as premises.
For N/S we adjust to 4♦ -1.
But for E/W? At first sight his 5♠ led to 5♠x -2, so perhaps result stands. But what about his argument that without MI he would play it differently. Let us say for the sake of argument we accept that without the MI he will make ten tricks half the time, nine tricks half the time. How do we adjust under Law 12C1B?
It seems to me that for E/W we should adjust to
.. 50% of 5♠x -2
+ 50% of 5♠x -1
Is this the correct way to do it?

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 15:47, said:

No, for arriving at the E/W score, that doesn't look like the correct technique to me.
Law 12C1b says ...:
So you need to quantify "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".
The table result was 5♠x-2(E), N/S+500
If East had not bid 5♠ (the action you have deemed to be wild or gambling), the table result would have been either 5♦-2 (S), N/S -100 or 5♦x-2(S), N/S -300.
Let's pretend it had been aggregate scoring for a moment.
The adjustment you made for N/S changes their score from +500 to -50, i.e. it makes their score 550 points worse (and the E/W score would become 550 points better for them were it not for Law 12C1b).
The effect of the 5♠ bid was to make E/W's score either 600 or 800 worse than it could have been. As both of these numbers are greater than 550, all of the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted, so the E/W assigned score is the table result.
In practice, it was IMP scoring, so you would need to IMP everything against the result at the other table to assess both the actual and the self-inflicted damage.
[The fact that East might have made 10 tricks in 5♠x is a red herring, I think. You have already adjusted for the misinformation in a more favourable manner to E/W than this when you assigned 4♦-1.
On the other hand it is possible in theory that weighting could come in to play when assessing what score the non-offending side might have achieved had the "wild or gambling action" not taken place.]

• Bluejak and Jallerton are making an unnecessary palaver over applying this simple law.
• The average club director can easily work all that out; and has plenty of time to do so.

[CamHenry]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 08:09, said:

This is the best switch at trick 2, but do you recall what happened after that? In which hand did declarer win the club switch? Did he play spades next? If so, what did South play after winning ♠A?

To be honest, it's most of a month now: my recollection is that trick two went small, small, J, A; declarer then took the heart finesse. I recall that when he did play on spades I won then exited a spade: whether this was before or after the HK took a trick I do not recall.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 15:47, said:

No, for arriving at the E/W score, that doesn't look like the correct technique to me.

Law 12C1b says:



So you need to quantify "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".

The table result was 5♠x-2(E), N/S+500

If East had not bid 5♠ (the action you have deemed to be wild or gambling), the table result would have been either 5♦-2 (S), N/S -100 or 5♦x-2(S), N/S -300.

Let's pretend it had been aggregate scoring for a moment.

The adjustment you made for N/S changes their score from +500 to -50, i.e. it makes their score 550 points worse (and the E/W score would become 550 points better for them were it not for Law 12C1b).

The effect of the 5♠ bid was to make E/W's score either 600 or 800 worse than it could have been. As both of these numbers are greater than 550, all of the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted, so the E/W assigned score is the table result.

In practice, it was IMP scoring, so you would need to IMP everything against the result at the other table to assess both the actual and the self-inflicted damage.

[The fact that East might have made 10 tricks in 5♠x is a red herring, I think. You have already adjusted for the misinformation in a more favourable manner to E/W than this when you assigned 4♦-1.

On the other hand it is possible in theory that weighting could come in to play when assessing what score the non-offending side might have achieved had the "wild or gambling action" not taken place.]

Ok, maybe I over-simplified the calculation.

But the question I wanted to ask was whether it is reasonable to weight the score because, while bidding 5♠ was SEWoG [assumed for the purposes of the question], without the infraction some of the time he would make a trick more. Do you think this a reasonable approach?