For such part !

[Allan Joseph]

Regarding "self inflicted" damage , Law12C1(b) reads:

" the non offending side ..............does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self inflicted ".
The wording " for such part " concerns me .

On previous occassions when I have applied this law , I have only ever awarded a " split score ":
The non offending side receives the table result ( i.e. the poor score that they earned due to their self inflicted damage ), whereas the offending side gets the score ( assessed ) that they would have got if their infraction had not occured .( the offending side should not gain by their infraction ).

Has anyone applied the law taking into account " for such part "?

Are we to assess which part of the poor table result was self inflicted , and subtract this from what we assess the result would have been without the original offending infraction .We probably are , but I struggle to get comfortable with this , and how to do it .
I would appreciate comment and if possible an example .

[Ed Reppert]

I've not had occasion myself to use this part of the law, and I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but I think I may have seen one somewhere. I'll poke around.

[Ed Reppert]

There is some discussion of this, and one example, in Ton Kooijman's Commentary on the Laws. He is Chairman of the WBFLC, and the commentary has been made official.

[Allan Joseph]

Thank you Ed, not only for researching the section on self inflicted damage but for informing us of this commentary and very kindly inserting the "link" for our benefit .
It will take me some time to study and absorb it .
Much much appreciated .
Regards , Allan Joseph .

[Nick Whitten]

I think I might be finally getting to understand the process of adjusting when there has been a SEWOG (“serious error or Wild or Gambling”) action by the non-offenders.
But just to be sure could you please confirm (or otherwise) I am on the right track.

Where there has been a SEWOG by Pair A following an infraction by Pair B:
There are three outcomes to consider;
[a] The actual result
[b] The likely result without the SEWOG (but still with the infraction)
[c] The likely result without the infraction or the SEWOG

For Pair B (the offenders) the score is adjusted to that in [c]
For Pair A the damage from the infraction only is the difference (in matchpoints or IMPs) between [b] and [c]. This difference is added to the MPs or IMPs they received in [a]

Of course they would never get a worse result than in [a] (if the infraction had actually benefited them – but they blew it)

An example:

North East South West
1NT pass (slow) pass 2S (with pass as a LA)
pass pass double (SEWOG) all pass

Suppose 2S makes and 1NT also would have made.

And the scores for NS at the other tables were:
+100
-50
-90
-100
-120
-130
-500

So the score for NS would be
[a] (actual result) -470 2 MP
[b] (without SEWOG) -110 6 MP
[c] (without infraction) +90 12 MP

The infraction alone therefore cost NS 6 MP (the difference between [c] and [b]) so add 6 MP to their actual result.
EW are awarded the MPs (2) for -90

The same process would apply with IMP scoring.
Comments please!

[Ed Reppert]

Hm. Interesting. If you do the computation in total points, the NOS end up keeping their matchpoint table result (2 mps for -280). The 1997 laws included a provision for computing the adjustment in either total points or matchpoints, but the current laws don't mention the matchpoint option. This accords with the current practice which deprecates looking at the traveller when making a ruling.

My first reaction is to say that you can't do the computation in mps any more. My second is that the computation in total points is a bit harsh on the NOS, at least in this case. I need to think about this a bit.

[Nick Whitten]

Total Points! I never thought of doing it that way.
I certainly favour the policy of making adjustments independently of what has happened at other tables.

I don’t have too much problem with the “harshness on the NOs”. Doubling part-scores is a high-risk business (except for levels so low they are not doubled into game).
IMO the anomaly is in the MP scoring which reduces such risk (and anomalously inflates the difference between making 2D and making 2H) etc etc

[Ed Reppert]

On reflection, I think I was right - you do the calculation in total points, which in this case results, if I'm not mistaken, in 2 MPs to each pair.

[Nick Whitten]

That Ton Kooiyman commentary is very good and worth spending the time to study it thoroughly

But now I’m wondering if the TD should consider the possibility of a “serious error” in situations where he has decided no rectification is called for. Just so it doesn’t get messy if there is an appeal.

For example:
Both sides vulnerable: (North) 1NT pass pass 2S (all pass)
EW make 2S and NS say East hesitated so West’s bid should be disallowed and 1NT would have made (NS +90).
TD decides the 2S bid is justified so no adjustment, but this ruling is overturned by the AC.
NOW the TD decided the failure to defeat 2S was a “serious error” and the “normal” outcome would be 1 down (NS +100) in which case the only damage would have been self-inflicted.

Should the TD point out when ruling at the table that 2S should be defeated, so even if that bid were disallowed there would still be no adjustment? So to avoid an unnecessary appeal.

[Ed Reppert]

It is highly unlikely, imo, that failure to defeat 2S would be a serious error in such a case. Depends on the actual hands, of course, but I can't think of a deal, unless the 2S bid itself was ridiculous.

Once the AC has made its decision, the TD has no more to say about the case.