[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Nigel wrote:
> [Appeal quoted by Richard Hills]
> Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994,
> Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None

> 
> [nige1]
> Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO:
> [a] The director should void the actual result because he can't know 
> what might have happened had North-South been given the opportunity to 
> prepare a defence to the conventional notrump overcall.


Yes Nigel, but what the director and AC did was not void the actual 
result, they voided the whole deal.
There is a subtle difference - which I was trying to point out in the 
post that prompted someone to drag up the Albuquerque case.
If you void the deal, you state that the 1NT bid was illegal and 
should not have happened.
If you only void the result, you state that the 1NT bid did happen, 
but you are unable to tell where the bidding and play might end if the 
opponents had had available to them the methods they had now been denied.
Do you see the difference?

With such a low-level call, the two methods will usually end up the 
same (40-60 seems a logical place to end up at), but if the 
misexlained call were to be far higher, the possible outcomes may well 
be more restricted, and one side or other might already have won the 
board. They should not be diminished to 60 or 40% for that.

Example: NS bid blackwood, and EW bid 6Cl showing the king of hearts. 
NS feel damaged because they don't have a defence against that method, 
and the TD agrees with that damage. Now he can do a lot of things, but 
he cannot include in his adjustment any scores based on NS ending in 
5He. So suppose NS bid 6He, and go one down, he can turn the score 
back to 6ClX-2, but not to 5He=. And if 6ClX-2 scores 35% on the 
board, then he cannot give A+ instead.

Well, that is my interpretation. I was asking if anyone believed that 
the call of 6Cl could be deemed illegal and 5He= would be a possible 
adjustment.

> [b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate previous victims.
> 

That is another kettle of fish entirely.

> Two small quibbles with the ruling:
> [i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the direcotor should also consider a 
> disciplinary penalty.
> [ii] The conventional meaning of the 1N overcall would have implications 
> for other overcalls. Previous opponents may have suffered damage because 
> they were unaware of those negative inferences; hence they, too, may 
> deserve compensation.
> 

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be