[lamford]

---

This was a hand from a correspondent in Gambela, where the strong pass is popular. East's initial Pass was 16+, which West forgot to alert, and South pulled out the 2NT bid instead of the 1NT bid in error, noticing his mistake with horror when the disappointing dummy appeared. East-West collected +1400.

The TD was called and he ruled that if the pass had been alerted, South would have passed and East-West would probably have scored +150 in 1NT. However, North-South retained the bad result of the accidental 2NT bid, which was defined as a 'serious error' by the Ethiopian Bridge Union Green Book, which regulated this event. The TD thought this table should score up twice with the other room, and average the result.

Do you agree with his ruling?

Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic. mrdct

[barmar]

While the MI may have prompted South to bid, it wasn't the cause of his OVERbid. That was his own mistake, unrelated to the MI. So I don't think there's any rectification.

[blackshoe]

Even if we must treat South's error as serious, EW should still get a score adjustment based on what would probably have happened had they alerted properly.

[iviehoff]

And, in addition to Blackshoe's correct statement, and as was pointed out to you in the other thread, we no longer deny redress because of SEWOG action, we apply Law 12C1b. Under 12C1b, they retain such of the damage is caused by the SEWOG action. I agree a mispull, noticed too late to correct, though unfortunate and unintended, is SEWOG. S intended to overcall 1N, in which he would probably have been doubled and gone 2 off, so the SEWOG damage is 500, at least in points. We should reckon up the two scores with and without the 500, net with the other table, and calculate the imp cost. As for the error of scoring up twice and averaging the scores, I'm sure you need no instruction on that.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-10, 03:30, said:

And, in addition to Blackshoe's correct statement, and as was pointed out to you in the other thread, we no longer deny redress because of SEWOG action, we apply Law 12C1b. Under 12C1b, they retain such of the damage is caused by the SEWOG action. I agree a mispull, noticed too late to correct, though unfortunate and unintended, is SEWOG. S intended to overcall 1N, in which he would probably have been doubled and gone 2 off, so the SEWOG damage is 500, at least in points. We should reckon up the two scores with and without the 500, net with the other table, and calculate the imp cost. As for the error of scoring up twice and averaging the scores, I'm sure you need no instruction on that.

As I said the thread did not coincide with my views. The actual table result was +1400; now corrected. The correct action, as you say, is first scoring the -1400 with the other table (+150), which is 14 IMPS. Had the player opened 1NT he would have been doubled and lost 800, so he would have lost 12 IMPs. So, the SeWoG cost 2 IMPs. With correct information it is presumed the board would be flat in +150, as strong passers would have no trouble also getting to 1NT. So, I presume that the team with this East-West win 2 IMPs on the board. And if opening 1NT would have emerged unscathed (with another layout), the loss could have been much more.

It is interesting that the failure to alert is punished (sorry rectified) less than the mechanical error which was too late to correct. Is it correct to treat a fingerfehler as a serious error? I believe that the intention in 12C1b is to punish seriously bad bridge rather than someone pulling the wrong card in the bidding or play. But the White Book does indeed give opening 2NT on a 12 count as a serious error.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-March-10, 05:02, said:

It is interesting that the failure to alert is punished (sorry rectified) less than the mechanical error which was too late to correct.

Not interesting really. A mechancial error too late to correct is likely to have a random effect and may from time to time be very expensive. So the fact that on a specific hand it costs more than something other thing isn't very interesting. The SEWOG isn't being "rectified" or "punished for", rather the amount it cost you anyway is being left in. I suppose what is somewhat arbitrary and one-way is what you got up to after some adjustment-creating event is normally ignored, be it good or bad, except when it is considered to be SEWOG.