[blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Martin Sinot:

[big snip]

>>Again, subtract from EW the IMP/MP difference between 4H= and 4H+1.
>>
>>You do this in all cases where part of the bad result comes from a
>>separate infraction, but there is still damage without that secondary
>>infraction. If there were only nine tricks in 4H, but the revoke let NS
>>make it, then you still adjust the NS score, but let EW keep their
>>score, because all they had to do was not revoke for a good score.

Richard Hills:

>I think that Martin Sinot is generally on the right track.
>
>However, I disagree with what I think Martin is saying in his final
>sentence (although it is possible that I have misinterpreted Martin's
>intent).  He seems to be saying that East-West keep their matchpoint
>bottom if their error was significant enough to turn a good matchpoint
>score into a bottom (letting the UI-assisted contract of 4H make
>instead of defeating it), but East-West do not keep their matchpoint
>bottom if their less significant error turned a poor matchpoint score
>into a bottom (conceding an overtrick when the UI-assisted 4H was cold
>for ten tricks).
>
>Law 12C2 states:
>".....The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be
>assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score
>prior to matchpointing.
>
>It seems to me that the best approach is Ton's idea (see attached
>below).  Although "altering the total-point score" is the default
>method of calculating adjusted scores, Ton's idea of "assigning in
>matchpoints" seems to me to ensure that the non-offending side who
>subsequently revokes is neither over-compensated nor under-compensated.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
>National Training Branch
>02 6225 6285

Ton Kooijman:

I think that the code of practise asks for another approach.

Let us take teams and the result at the other table is 3S + 1.

For the offending side their score is adjusted to 3S + ??

The code of practise is not clear about the ??. There are two
possibilities:

+ 1, with the argument that playing in 3S might have avoided the revoke ( 0
IMP)
+ 2, the offending side made 11 tricks. (1 IMP)

This argument of having played differently is not so clear when a revoke
has
occurred but certainly could be valid in normal play, trying for the down
trick. I used 'normal', which shows the approach to follow I think. As long
as the play went within the range of 'normal' as defined in the laws it
should be accepted and the loss of an extra trick should be compensated.

For the non offending side the damage caused by the revoke is subsequent,
the damage caused by the 4S bid is consequent damage and should be
compensated.

We played board 1, non-vulnerable.
The actual result is +170 - 450 ( - 7 imps)
The consequent damage is based on +170 - 420  (- 6 imps). So the adjusted
score for the offending side is - 1 imp.

Vulnerable there would not have been a difference in this case.

In a pairs event the difference could be big.

Let us take the frequencies:
5 times + 170 (4 mp) 6 times + 420 (15 mp) and this score of + 450 (22 mp).

For the offenders either + 170 (5 mp) or + 200 (10 mp)

The non-offenders: actually they have a 0 (zero). With normal play they
would have received 6 mp for 7 bottom scores of  - 420. There is no
compensation for this loss of 6 mp. But there is for the difference between

the expected result without an infraction (17 mp) and the normal result
after the infraction ( 6 mp). So this pair receives 11 mp.

Leaves us with the question what score all other pairs should receive. For
pairs compared with the offending side (I mean NS or EW) just add  170 or
200 and calculate the mp. For the pairs compared with the non-offending
side
I would add - 200 and then calculate the mp.

ton (it is easy to make mistakes, so waiting for your critical remarks)