[blml] Split score

[Adam Beneschan]

Marv wrote:
 
> From: "Adam Beneschan"
> 
> > In your part of the world, I believe this only applies if you
> can
> > judge the 5H bid to be "wild, irrational, or gambling"; in
> that case,
> > you can rule that the 5H bid was not caused by the
> misinformation and
> > thus no adjustment is necessary.  In the ACBL, the standard is
> a bit
> > looser---the bid just has to be egregiously bad to break the
> causative
> > link.
> >
> The ACBL is supposed to adhere to the interpretations of the
> WBFLC, whose "wild, irrational, or gambling"  interpretation at
> its Lille meeting applies to all members of the WBF.

OK, I'm probably wrong.  I thought there was an "official" ACBL
interpretation that referred to "egregious errors".  Maybe there was,
maybe there still is, I'm not sure.  Some director and committee
rulings in the ACBL, however, seem to be based on a standard that's a
lot looser even than that, in which a non-offender must play perfect
bridge after an irregularity in order to get the benefit of an
adjustment.  That's just wrong.

In any case, the original poster used the phrase "really bad", as in
"don't give the non-offenders an adjustment if the 5H bid is really
bad".  But, as a player who has often misjudged when to save and when
to defend and has made some really bad guesses in this matter, "really
bad" doesn't sound bad enough to me to warrant refusing to adjust.

                                -- Adam