[benlessard]

---

3S is preemptive, West first pass is done after a long hesitation and East clearly bid 4S because of the BIT. Everybody agree about the BIT, the UI and that passing 4H instead of 4S is LA.

However south made a really stupid mistake (on par with a revoke) and instead of 4Sx -2 , 4S is now making (from +500 to -790 ouch). 4H would have been making four. Assume that the low difficulty of defending 4Sx for +500 is exactly the same than to make 4H for +620.

Im not interested in the proper ruling under the current laws, I don't care about EW score or procedural penalties, im only interested in what would you consider a fair score for NS if you were king for a day and had to write your own bridge laws.


+620... VS ethical players NS should be in 4H making so giving them less than 620 doesnt fully protect them.

somewhere between 400 and 570.... Its +620 minus a penalty for the stupid mistake. I want to charge at least a little something for the gross mistake.

between +150 and -150.... VS a normal 4S bid the stupid mistake would have cost 1290 pts (from +500 to -790) So giving them a penalty of about 650 pts make sense.

-200, if south is making an equivalent mistake in 4H he would be -200 instead of +620.

-670 (the 4S bid only rob them of 120 pts, from +620 to +500 so I see the damages as mostly NS fault so -790 but with a kickback of 120 because of the EW infraction.

-790 NS keep their result, they are the prime responsible in their own damage by "failure to play bridge".



Would it matter if it was a KO team event VS a MP/imps pairs event where there is a field to protect ?

[wank]

i suspect it was posted where it was originally, because the OP didn't want a response from directors based on laws, but rather one from players based on fairness. i'd move it back.

[lamford]

.

[lamford]

 benlessard, on 2014-December-14, 12:55, said:

Im not interested in the proper ruling under the current laws, I don't care about EW score or procedural penalties, im only interested in what would you consider a fair score for NS if you were king for a day and had to write your own bridge laws.

A fair score is the one under the Laws, and that depends on the jurisdiction, and whether an action was SeWoG.

[blackshoe]

Where was this posted originally? Who moved it, if anyone knows?

[Xiaolongnu]

I am sure I am missing something from OP here cos I agree that you can't be fair without being lawful at the same time. You can't be lenient and fair at the same time for example. But I might guess OP might be trying to say that as a matter of discretion he has already made the "ruling" decisions and what he needs is advice on the "adjustment" decisions.

[benlessard]

It has nothing to do with a real case, I just want to know how fair most players think 12c1b is.

http://bridgewinners...w/roll-it-back/

in this M.Rosenberg suggest that “YOU SHOULD NOT GET A WORSE SCORE THAN THE ONE YOU WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED AGAINST ETHICAL OPPONENTS.” Wich is clearly in contracdiction with 12c1b.

http://bridgewinners...etical-example/

My view is that NS already got a great a priori compensation as soon as EW bid 4S.

1- If 4S goes down 3 +800 is better than the normal +620
2- If 4H has no play, 4Sx going down would be better than the normal 4H going down.
3- If 4H was on a finesse or multiples lines of play was possible we will rule out that 4H is making while in a normal 4H it could have gone down.

Each of these 3 advantages is IMO are fair enough compensation for the cases where the non-offender make a serious mistakes and doesnt get full compensation. Put the three together and imo NS cant complain hes getting a great deal.

The problem I have is that sometimes the score cost of the mistake isnt in the same scale in 4Sx than in 4H. If 4H would make 5 even if I make a revoke im still going to be +620 while the same stupid play in 4Sx may cost 1300 pts.
For other cases where BIT,UI or LA is ruled by the director/AC but not unanimous among the players I feel that giving an automatic good score to NS is WAY too generous.

Michael Rosenberg and Rich Colker have a suggestion ; they suggest that if the non-offenders were not in a position to get a better score than they would have achieved without the infraction, they get rolled back.
But if they could have collected +800 and didn't (be it +200 or -790) they are stuck with their table result the offender still get -620.

I have some problems with this suggestion.

Opps take a vul sac that is one trick too costly…

+800 is available and I grossly blew a trick and get +500 instead of 620 a penalty of 120 vs the missed opportunity to win an extra 180. The same situation but not vul will look like +500 was available instead of my +420 game, the same gross misdefense will endup with a +200 score for a penalty of 220 vs a missed opportunity to win 80. So its a case of risk 120 to win 180 and risk 220 to win 80 not at all equivalent odds. Its just look a bit random to me that vul im having a great deal but if im not vul im getting 80 instead of 330 for equivalent odds.

I also have problem on mistakes giving an entry to dummy
(3+ tricks)
So in a deal you could get +500 in defending 3NT but you make a gross mistake costing 3 tricks and end up protected and will get an automatic +620. Change the same deal a little bit and now +800 is available but if you make the same gross mistake you may end up with -750. So basically the extra 180 you could have won turn out to cost you 1370.
I don't think these cases (where a mistake cost 3 tricks) are going to be frequent but I could see them happening.

Quote

A fair score is the one under the Laws

Are you really saying that are all laws are fair ? Here under the laws the proper ruling is -670/-620 (12c1) yet nobody voted for it.

[pran]

 benlessard, on 2014-December-14, 23:16, said:

Are you really saying that are all laws are fair ? Here under the laws the proper ruling is -670/-620 (12c1) yet nobody voted for it.

He is obviously just stating the facts: A game is defined by its rules.

One may argue that the laws are unfair, and such arguments have led to several changes in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge over the years. However, once it comes to the question of a ruling then one major condition for the ruling to be fair is that it complies with the existing laws.

[benlessard]

I think "just" and justice are define by laws and rules and fair and fairness are above all laws and rules.

wiki = Fairness or being fair may refer to: Justice · Equity (law), a legal principle allowing for the use of discretion and fairness when applying justice

In french the distinction is clearer "juste et equitable"

Anyway by fair I meant is has nothing to do with the rules, its more like what would you personnally consider an equitable/acceptable results for all, outside of written laws.

An owner whipping a slave as much as he want was justice its wasnt fairness.

[nige1]

 benlessard, on 2014-December-14, 23:16, said:

It has nothing to do with a real case, I just want to know how fair most players think 12c1b is.

http://bridgewinners...w/roll-it-back/

in this M.Rosenberg suggest that "YOU SHOULD NOT GET A WORSE SCORE THAN THE ONE YOU WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED AGAINST ETHICAL OPPONENTS." Wich is clearly in contracdiction with 12c1b.

http://bridgewinners...etical-example/

A game is its rules. Within current constraints, a fair ruling must take into account the present rules of the game, however daft. I feel, however, that SEWOG and "Protect yourself" rules are sophisticated, mistaken, and unnecessary. i.e. The game would simpler and fairer without them.

[blackshoe]

We are so far apart in our understanding of these words that I cannot answer your question. In particular, the first definition of "fair" in my dictionary is "in accordance with the rules".

An owner whipping a slave is not justice. Slavery is an abomination.

[barmar]

One of the goals of the Laws is to restore equity after an irregularity. Surely you can have an opinion about whether a particular Law achieves that goal. If it doesn't, a way to describe such a law would be "unfair".

In the last revision of the Laws, they changed the number of tricks transferred in some revoke situations. Presumably the Law Commission realized that the old law was unfair, and changed it to make it more fair.

If there were a law in the real world that had much harsher penalties for petty theft than murder, wouldn't you say that such a law was unfair?

[blackshoe]

Three strikes laws come close, IMO.

[benlessard]

I did spot many times where fairness = free from injustice or "in accordance with the rules". In fact impartial,fair,just,equitable seems to have the same meaning in english. So im simply puzzled.

My knowledge of english isnt good enough.

In french we say "Cafe de commerce équitable" wich is translated by fair trade coffee. It has nothing to do with laws or rules and of course it doesnt mean that normal types of coffee are illegal or are breaking rules it just mean that the transaction is uneven but legal.

Juste et equitable could be translated as "right and just" or "just and fair" but it doesnt make any sense if both english words have similar meanings.

"An owner whipping a slave is not justice. Slavery is an abomination." Well for more than 4500 years treating a slave as a commodities was common law in many civilizations. There are laws in the bible about its ok if the slave recover after 2 or 3 days but the owner may be found guitly if the slave dies (after a beating) etc..

[barmar]

The first two definitions in my dictionary are:

1. in accordance with the rules or standards;

2. just or appropriate in the circumstances

So if you go by the first definition, the Laws define what is fair. But the second definition can be used to judge whether the Laws themselves are fair.

We also often consider a rule to be fair if it's applied equitably, but that can be judged along multiple dimensions. One way is whether all people are treated equally by a specific law, but another way is to compare rules and laws to each other -- if two infractions are considered to have similar severity, are the punishments comparable? This is related to the notion of "punishment fits the crime".

[blackshoe]

 benlessard, on 2014-December-15, 21:05, said:

"An owner whipping a slave is not justice. Slavery is an abomination." Well for more than 4500 years treating a slave as a commodities was common law in many civilizations. There are laws in the bible about its ok if the slave recover after 2 or 3 days but the owner may be found guitly if the slave dies (after a beating) etc..

Life is not a game.