[blml] Split score

[Laszlo Hegedus]

Adam Beneschan wrote:

>As for a procedural penalty: I don't think this should be automatic.
>Sometimes just a warning is more appropriate.  
>  
>
Well, "warning" is a kind of procedural penalty :)

> 
>  
>
>>#3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the 
>>declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split score.
>>    
>>
>
>I think this is wrong.  If the contract should have been at 4S, but
>the opponents bid 5H because of the misinformation, then you adjust to
>what the result would have been at 4S.  You don't consider what
>actually happened at 5H---unless, of course, they made 5H, and then
>you let the NO's keep their good score.  But even if they go down more
>than they should have, it doesn't matter.  If the irregularity (the
>MI) had not occurred, the contract would have been 4S, and the result
>of 4S is what the NO's are entitled to, according to the Laws.
>  
>
Thanks your  anwseres to my questions, but missed the most inportant, so 
I repeat:

Is there any quite different situation when split score is 
adjusted?


OK, I see you wold'nt adjust a split score in this #3 as well, but I 
think that's the classic example.

>This may not be a universal opinion.  There's been debate on this
>subject on BLML in the past, and I think I used to be of the opinion
>that the NO's should suffer *some* punishment in their score for
>playing 5H really badly.  But I've changed my mind.
>
>                                -- adam
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>  
>