Law 86b1: Is this clearly favourable to one side?
I'm not sure how good such a result needs to be to qualify for "clearly favourable". The examples in the white book are more extreme than this case, so:
Result obtained by NS: 3Sx-2 500
All results for the board:
2S= 110
3H-1 -50
3Cx-1 200
3H-2 -100
2H-2 -100
2H-2 -100
2S-1 -50
4Hx-3 -500
3Sx-2 500
3Cx-2 500
3H-2 -100
3H-1 -50
3NT-1 -50
3Cx-2 500
4Hx-3 -500
2H= 110
3H-1 -50
3Cx-2 500
3H-4 -200
3H-2 -100
4H-2 -100
Do I adjust beyond the 3 Imps?
Comments
It's the top 4 or 5 results out of 22 or so, I'd call that clearly favourable. And looks like it would gain +12 or something.
Note that the laws says "clearly" and not "very", so whenever it's clear you should adjust.
When you have this many other scores, one way is to cross-IMP it and if you do that you find NS get 9.6 IMPs. You might adjust to this score, rounding up or down depending on who was at fault.
Doesn't 86B1 specifically require an assigned score, as opposed to an artificial score? So you'd have to assign some score to the table where the infraction happened.
I guess you could assign it as a weighted score (based on the results at other tables), which would probably produce the same result as cross-IMPing.
>
> I guess you could assign it as a weighted score (based on the results at other tables), which would probably produce the same result as cross-IMPing.
Exactly!
Only when the "clearly" test has been met.
Suppose the single result had been a bad one?
>
Well yes, but my question was how do we assess "clearly"?
Your wording ("might") suggests that a 9 (or 10) IMP difference is the sort of difference where we would start considering adjusting. Is that what you meant?
The people getting the "better than 3 IMPs" score will always be the ones not at fault, so by your rules you would always round up - even from (say) 9.05. Rounding to the nearest sounds better.
For the record, I think that in this case it IS clearly favourable - what I'm after is guidance for other cases. Do we always adjust if the cross imps is > 3?
(I appreciate the wording of this law may be aimed at cases where there is no cross-imp option - that's what the White Book examples seem to be suggesting).
You seem to assume that it's only when the NOS get a good score that you adjust further. That's not what the law says.
I said "might" as in "you might use this number as a basis for your adjustment".
Whenever it is clear that one side has a good score, no matter by how much, the law is saying to adjust. Imagine a field in which everyone is flat in 3NT-1=50, but for one table who played in 2NT= for +120. That team clearly has a good score and should be adjusted to 4 IMPs rather than 3.
Here's an article about this law and the WBF Commentary also covers it.
I am indeed!
I was assuming the "adjust if better for non-offending side" principlem but as you say that's not what it says.
Every day's a schoolday!
Understood.
Thank you - much to think about here.
I will cogitate and maybe come back on this one.