[blml] Split score

[Eric Landau]

On May 9, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Laszlo Hegedus wrote:

> Hi, suppose after a long auction East-West reach 4S. During the  
> bidding
> there was an agreed MI: East misinformed North about one of his
> partner's bid. The MI drives North to sacrifice 5H which is doubled  
> and
> goes down 2, the 4S would have been down 2 as well. With correct
> information North would surely pass instead of sacrifice (and the 4S-2
> is the very likely result). If you are the TD, you see North's hand  
> and
> decides if the sacrifice is reasonable or clearly bad bridge with the
> received information.
>
> #1 If the sacrifice is reasonable. You adjust  4S-2.

Yes.

> #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result
> 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS.

No.  First of all, the sacrifice must be a lot worse than just  
"really bad": an "egregious error" (ACBL) or "wild, irrational or  
gambling" (Europe).  And if it is, the appropriate result is a split  
score (table result for the egregiously erroring NOS, 4S-2 for the  
OS).  The OS should only be given a procedural penalty (in addition  
to the adjustment) only if their infraction was egregious, i.e. if  
one judges that it may have been an outright attempt to cheat.

> #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.

No.  Split scores are given when the NOS's error is "sufficiently  
egregious to break the connection between the infraction and the  
damage".  The "connection" in this case is between the MI and the 5H  
bid; it is that connection that the "Kaplan doctrine" requires be  
broken.  So it is the sacrifice that must be judged to have been the  
"egregious error".  What happens subsequently should not affect the  
adjustment.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net