Offending Side result after 'gambling' action by N/O - clarification please

Peter

Been looking at WBF Commentary on 2017 Laws page 6 (law 12 score adjustment)

Team B bid 4S over 4H after BIT. 4S would be -2 if left in. Team A then bid 5H as a gambling action which is doubled two off.

WBF says "Team B(offenders) not allowed to gain from infraction so receive a score based on expectation if irregularity not occurred"
After the infraction but before N/O's gambling action Team B were set to score -100.
Without the infraction Team B (offenders) were set to score +100
The WBF Commentary says the offenders should be given the score of +100 as if the infraction never occurred

Puzzled because Law 12 C 1 (e) says "..... gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification" then immediately Law 12 C 1 (e) (i) follows and says "the offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying it's infraction"

In this case isn't the rectification of the infraction (bidding LA suggested by UI) to let 4S-2 stand?

In which case shouldn't team B (offenders) be given a score of -100 on this hand, rather than the (better for them) score as if they had never made an infraction in the first place?

If the WBF commentary is right doesn't it encourage using UI knowing that (a) TD might not be called and (b) TD might give you the score you would have got anyway if opps gamble?

weejonnie

This is how I think I would apply it. Team A weren't disadvantaged by the irregularity and so keep the result of the gambling action.

As for team B - there is no score adjustment for their irregularity - since no damage exists. So they keep their -100.

"1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take
away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

Robin_BarkerTD

Can 5H be a gamble? If 5H makes you get the score for 5H=, if 5H doesn't make and 4S is illegal you get 4H=; if you don't bid 5H and 4S is illegal you get 4H+1 or 4H= or the table score from 4S if better. If 4S is illegal there is no upside to 5H.

But to answer the question: White Book 4.1.3 (and perhaps 8.12.5)

Peter

Thanks weejonnie & Robin .... WB 4.1.3 is a great find ... and I had overlooked it

Sheba977

one of my partners gambles all the time. last night I managed to play 2 games as declarer, he the rest. even when I never made a bid, he kept on bidding. Opponents often tell me they get cross with him - apart from dropping him as a partner what do you experts recommend? I do not have a white book in Australia to refer to.

weejonnie

All calls are gambles. You gamble that by making the call you will get to a better contract than if you make another.

One tactic I use: if partner overbids several times and forces the opponents to game - I double no matter what I hold, my argument being "You wouldn't have forced them to game unless you thought you could beat it."

I don't see why opponents should get cross with a player who keeps dolling them matchpoints and imps. If he is making sacrifices that pay off then that is 'just bridge' - opponents again have no recourse if a player makes a call that gets him to the best result.

It may be too late now, but Skid Simon recommended that you, too, overbid (or at least give the impression of doing so). If your partner thinks this is the case then they may curb their excesses.

(I am not an expert - this forum is about implementation of the laws, not about handling your partner.)

What we are talking about here are the circumstances when the opponents think that a ruling will be made in their favour and so take a low-probability action that might lead to a very good score, with the security that if their action fails then it will be ruled back. The law is universal, the EBU give guidelines how their TDs should implement it.

Senior_Kibitzer

... last night I managed to play 2 games as declarer, he the rest.

Do you mean that you never defended?