[hrothgar]

sanst, on 2025-April-06, 02:51, said:

A bit OT: I know it under the name 'multi defense'. It means either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the 2♧ is obligatory unless you gave a good suit yourself. In the same way (1NT) - 2♧ is either diamonds or hearts and spades, 2◇ hearts or spades and clubs etcetera. I've no idea whether it's legal in ACBL-land, in The Netherlands it is allowed at all levels.

Here in the US, I normally hear this described as "Suction"

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2025-April-05, 02:53, said:

You were replying to a question about if/why E/W claimed to be damaged. You did state a fact about the fact they faced a different situation, but that has no relationship to whether they were damaged or not.

Once again, I made a statement of fact. I did not claim that E/W were damaged. You would have to look at other results to see what a "normal" result might look like.

smerriman, on 2025-April-05, 02:53, said:

.. which is no damage, since E/W outscored this.

Again, I did not say there was damage. But how do you know that this particular E/W didn't have the worst score in the room?

smerriman, on 2025-April-05, 02:53, said:

If this would be your claim, please provide a viable sequence to do so that isn't based on double dummy bidding.

Again, I did not say there was damage. But suppose every other E/W pair ended up in hearts and ended up with a higher score. Would those other E/W pairs have been using double dummy bidding?

Or maybe were doubled and making. Or every other N/S had a disaster of some sorts.

[mycroft]

Ah, if it is suction starting with double, that makes more sense. And makes 2♦ even more ???, unless you're *sure* from table feel that it is in fact clubs. East could easily be 1543 with West having the 6 clubs...

But that's speculation on top of speculation.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-April-06, 04:30, said:

Once again, I made a statement of fact.
Again, I did not say there was damage.
Again, I did not say there was damage.

And again, you were replying to a question about how E/W claimed they were damaged in this specific situation. If you're not giving hypothetical answers to that question, then I don't know what you're doing.

None of "we faced a different problem", "we got a bottom score", "every other N/S had a disaster" are in any way valid claims, IMO. Yes, if every other pair ended up in hearts, they would have a valid claim. But in this case, that seems 100% impossible; I can't think of a single such auction, and it seems neither can you. I'm looking for a *viable* reason that E/W may have had to claim damage on this hand.

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2025-April-06, 14:11, said:

....
nonsense deleted
....

For the reading impaired, I was making a statement of fact. Who knows if there was measurable damage by the end of the hand without knowing what happened at the other tables. I don't know, do you?

And yes, if 1NT was an illegal opening, then E/W were damaged by having to bid in an auction that other pairs holding their cards did not have to face because their opponents followed the rules. It's possible that they overcame their disadvantage and ended up with an average, or even a great score and there isn't a score adjustment.

[jillybean]

It's complicated and IMO, deserves more attention than, "It's a legal psych, no damange"

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2025-April-06, 15:47, said:

if 1NT was an illegal opening

If North had punched East in the face multiple times, he would likely be charged with assault
But this didn't happen and so there is no need to discuss this

In much the same way, there is no evidence that 1NT was "an illegal opening", so there doesn't seem to be any reason to discuss this

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-April-06, 15:47, said:

I don't know, do you?

Nope, thus why sanst and I both asked. I'm glad we agree that your reply to that question didn't help answer it.

hrothgar, on 2025-April-06, 15:54, said:

In much the same way, there is no evidence that 1NT was "an illegal opening", so there doesn't seem to be any reason to discuss this

Without knowing what E/W's dispute was, everything is hypothetical. Perhaps they claimed N/S had a habit of such psychs, which would make it illegal. Seems the most vital bit of missing info, anyway.

[mycroft]

johnu said:

Who knows if there was measurable damage by the end of the hand without knowing what happened at the other tables. I don't know, do you?

Law 12B1 said:

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.

One would hope, the director. Note the absolute lack of "results at other tables" in that definition.

Now would the damage actually lead to an increased MP result? Okay, sure. But who cares? You can - and should - make a ruling first, and (for ACBLScor, if it's not a weighted score), put it in, and let the computer worry about the matchpoints. Sure, if it's a weighted score, the director has to look at the rest of the results, work out the actual MPs to assign, and manually add an adjustment, but that's a limitation of the program, not a requirement of the Law. If they went -110 and should have been -100 without the infraction, though, even if everyone else in the room was +50 (or -400!), they were damaged.

Sure, also, you can use results at other tables *as evidence* of, say, "how many get to game after a 2♦ opening?", or "how many tricks will N/S make in diamonds?", but remember that not everybody is going to (or can) open 2♦ with that hand (it might be 1♦, it might be 3♦, it might be pass!), and "everybody" in the other results will have a different auction than at this table! So, it's better to do the work with the information at the table only, and ignore the "results at the other tables".

So the questions are:

• Was there an infraction?
  
• If so, was there damage?

and neither of those questions care about anybody but the 4 players and the director(s, and those they consult).

[sanst]

 mycroft, on 2025-April-06, 19:13, said:

So the questions are:

• Was there an infraction?
  
• If so, was there damage?

and neither of those questions care about anybody but the 4 players and the director(s, and those they consult).

Sorry, you forget the third question:
- If so, was the dammage caused by the infraction?
When trainig for director we were taught that the answer to these three questions has to be three times YES before you decide to determine a rectification.

[mycroft]

True.

Late, in prep for travel. Other tables still not relevant to question(s). Thank you for the reminder, though.

(note, still "in prep for travel." May be giving less accurate vibes than normal (for me :-). Everything here *absolutely* sincere, no sarcasm intended.)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2025-April-04, 22:15, said:

But if you've entered the (full) BRP, not only have you won or come second in a high-level event (open or nearly open), you've decided to play against the best of the best and fodder like me. In the last 10 years or so, you've also decided to do that instead of entering the 0-6000 or 0-2500 BRP.

It's not that hard to enter the BRP. I have 41 qualifiers, and I'm not a great player. It's probably due to these:

Quote

2. First through 10th and all ties in all other nationally rated events that have an upper masterpoint limit of more than 1500 masterpoints.
3. Except for Continuous Pairs/Side Game Series type events, first and second (including ties) in all Gold Point Regionally-Rated Events with no upper masterpoint limit or with an upper masterpoint limit of more than 1500 masterpoints. For bracketed KOs the foregoing applies to brackets issuing 100% gold points and for an applicable team in any bracket having at least one member with more than 1500 masterpoints.

I've had some high finishes in 5K, 6K, and 10K events.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2025-April-06, 02:51, said:

A bit OT: I know it under the name 'multi defense'. It means either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the 2♧ is obligatory unless you gave a good suit yourself. In the same way (1NT) - 2♧ is either diamonds or hearts and spades, 2◇ hearts or spades and clubs etcetera. I've no idea whether it's legal in ACBL-land, in The Netherlands it is allowed at all levels.

If you mean Suction (as it seems at first sight) then I think it used to be illegal or limited in ACBL as a defence, not sure about current position.
In Italy (like all of WBF-land I imagine) it is fully legal as defence but not as an opening that may be weak.

[mycroft]

Used to be Mid-Chart(*). Now (for at least 4 years) it's Open/+ legal. Which is where it belongs. Even if it does have a silent "k".

(*) Used to be GCC legal, until somebody decided it's too hard to defend against all these weird 1NT defences and required 2♦ and higher to promise a suit. 1997 or so, IIRC. Pity, I liked CRaSh (even if it was clearly a bad system, it was fun). Have a system I enjoy (and two I play because partners do) now, so even if it were legal...