Problem with Corner Twists

[Huntermagic]

It is clear that the WCA rules for puzzle defect is made mainly for situation like pops in the first place. Since corner twists tend to occur more easily with some of the new cubes, and possibly unoticed because you can still turn normally with a corner twisted. I think corner twist is still an issue that needed to be addressed better in the WCA regulation.

From the section of puzzle defect:
--5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped parts, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.
--5b) If a puzzle defect occurs during an attempt, the competitor may choose to either repair the defect and continue the attempt, or to stop the attempt.
--5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
--5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.

My question here is:
1. If a corner twist occurred without the attention of both the judge and the competitor, and the competitor found out the problem when he got to a later stage of solving such as OLL, in which the twist was more obviously recognized. Should the penalty be given because it violated rule 5b?
2. Should a person is allowed to fix the twist at the OLL, in the end, or whenever he/she recognized it, which corner should he twist so rule 5b2 is complied with. (recognizing the initially twisted corner is not possible here)

Please tell me what you people think and how you would deal with such situation in a competition.

 

[Dene]

Actually, the regulations were worded in this way, pretty much to explicitly deal with corner twists. The answers to your questions are simple:

1. It is not possible to "violate" 5b, and there is certainly no penalty for it. Just repair the puzzle whenever you want; but I would recommend doing it asap, whatever the defect, as the longer you put it off the more it will negatively impact your solve (e.g. if you put off a corner twist until the end of the solve, you cannot repair the corner that is out of place, as that would violate 5b2, so you would be forced back to OLL (method dependent, of course)). This leads to your next question...
2. This depends on the situation of the solve and is a judgement call, but you cannot advance the solve by repairing the defect, so for example, you cannot twist a corner as the last move to solve OLL; you must instead twist another corner to create an OLL case with two twisted corners.

 

[Huntermagic]

So if a twist is spotted by the judge, is the judge required to stop the competitor at the moment and ask him to choose either repair and continue or to stop the attempt?

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

2. This depends on the situation of the solve and is a judgement call, but you cannot advance the solve by repairing the defect, so for example, you cannot twist a corner as the last move to solve OLL; you must instead twist another corner to create an OLL case with two twisted corners.

This is surely a border case, because what if you were going to get an OLL skip but have only 1 corner twisted, are you really expected to intentionally unsolve the cube to fix the corner? If so, please tell me where you got this from as it doesn't say that in the regulations. At least not directly.

So if a twist is spotted by the judge, is the judge required to stop the competitor at the moment and ask him to choose either repair and continue or to stop the attempt?

I think you misunderstand. You make the choice yourself, you don't need the judge to ask you, it's entirely your own choice, so you would spot the twist, and you can continue up to whatever point and then twist the corner to correct the state, or just DNF when you see the twist.

 

[Goosly]

This is surely a border case, because what if you were going to get an OLL skip but have only 1 corner twisted, are you really expected to intentionally unsolve the cube to fix the corner? If so, please tell me where you got this from as it doesn't say that in the regulations. At least not directly.

Yes. Rule 5b2. You accidentally twisted a corner. It might have been an OLL-case with 2 twisted corners, it might have been an OLL-skip. You'll never know. But you are required to not take an advantage from this, and thus you must flip a different corner.

"5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF)."

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Yes. Rule 5b2. You accidentally twisted a corner. It might have been an OLL-case with 2 twisted corners, it might have been an OLL-skip. You'll never know. But you are required to not take an advantage from this, and thus you must flip a different corner.

"5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF)."

OK so assume you get an OLL case with 3 twisted corners, such as sune, but one of them is twisted incorrectly. Normally you would do a sune, then have 1 corner twisted, and then you have to unorient another corner and then solve that OLL as well? Surely that's not giving any advantage, just stacking another disadvantage.

 

[Goosly]

Hmmm, I guess you can twist the 1 flipped corner back then. Dunno actually I don't think any judge will give you a DNF for doing that.

 

[Dene]

OK so assume you get an OLL case with 3 twisted corners, such as sune, but one of them is twisted incorrectly. Normally you would do a sune, then have 1 corner twisted, and then you have to unorient another corner and then solve that OLL as well? Surely that's not giving any advantage, just stacking another disadvantage.

This is why I advised fixing the issue asap. In my opinion, in your example I would say the correct action to take is to twist one of the oriented corners to make another OLL case, even after doing a sune first.

In practise I possibly wouldn't rule against it though, because the solve would already be ruined.

 

[Robert-Y]

You don't even know which corner was twisted. What if the competitor untwisted the correct corner and got an OLL skip? Will you tell them that that is forbidden?

 

[Dene]

You don't even know which corner was twisted. What if the competitor untwisted the correct corner and got an OLL skip? Will you tell them that that is forbidden?

I don't understand the scenario exactly. Could you elaborate? I have been very clear about my opinion in how to interpret the rules in a case where OLL is "finished" except for one twisted corner.

 

[DavidCip86]

What if you see the corner twist on the oll, and depending on which way you twist the corner, you could get a better case? (dunno if I explained very well lol)

 

[Methuselah96]

What if you see the corner twist on the oll, and depending on which way you twist the corner, you could get a better case? (dunno if I explained very well lol)

This depends on the situation of the solve and is a judgement call, but you cannot advance the solve by repairing the defect, so for example, you cannot twist a corner as the last move to solve OLL; you must instead twist another corner to create an OLL case with two twisted corners.

Please try to read the other posts of the thread carefully.

 

[DavidCip86]

Please try to read the other posts of the thread carefully.

I'm not talking about skipping oll, I mean just making a better case compared to a worse case.

For example you could have two unoriented corners, but it is not a valid case. If you twist an oriented corner, you could get sune. If you twisted an unoriented corner, you'd get something worse than sune. Does it matter what corner you twist?

 

[Dene]

For example you could have two unoriented corners, but it is not a valid case. If you twist an oriented corner, you could get sune. If you twisted an unoriented corner, you'd get something worse than sune. Does it matter what corner you twist?

The case which you deem to be "better" or "worse" is a subjective matter, and doesn't advance the solve in theory, so in this case it doesn't matter.

 

[DavidCip86]

The case which you deem to be "better" or "worse" is a subjective matter, and doesn't advance the solve in theory, so in this case it doesn't matter.

Ok thanks :-D

 

[Huntermagic]

I think you misunderstand. You make the choice yourself, you don't need the judge to ask you, it's entirely your own choice, so you would spot the twist, and you can continue up to whatever point and then twist the corner to correct the state, or just DNF when you see the twist.

This is the main problem here. I believe this is the issue that needs clarification before discussing which corner to twist and whether it gives a solving advantage to the competitor. In the case when the twist is spotted right away by at least the judge, according to rule 5b, I don't see the reason how the competitor can "spot the twist, and continue up to whatever point and then twist the corner to correct the state" since the rule only gave the competitor 2 choices when the defect occurs, either to fix, or DNF. I believe cases with unoticed twists should be discussed separately.

--5b) If a puzzle defect occurs during an attempt, the competitor may choose to either repair the defect and continue the attempt, or to stop the attempt.

 

[Lchu613]

This is why I advised fixing the issue asap. In my opinion, in your example I would say the correct action to take is to twist one of the oriented corners to make another OLL case, even after doing a sune first.

I would re-orient the corner before doing sune and save myself a bit of trouble.

I'm guessing you're referring to doing sune before noticing the corner is twisted?

 

[Angel Lim]

What happens if during a 3bld you exe perfectly but you end with one corner twist (either by the scrambler or unknowingly by you). Is this a DNF?

 

[Dene]

I'm guessing you're referring to doing sune before noticing the corner is twisted?

Indeed I am.

What happens if during a 3bld you exe perfectly but you end with one corner twist (either by the scrambler or unknowingly by you). Is this a DNF?

Yes.

 

[Robert-Y]

I don't understand the scenario exactly. Could you elaborate? I have been very clear about my opinion in how to interpret the rules in a case where OLL is "finished" except for one twisted corner.

Ok here's an example. On a solved cube, twist the UFR corner. Do R U R'. Now let's say I'm about to finish F2L, so I do R U' R'. Now I think "Oh look, I accidentally twisted a corner. I guess I'll twist the UFR corner and get a LL skip." This is the correct corner to correct. But you're saying I should twist a different corner instead? Are you saying this is not allowed?

You probably wouldn't even be able to tell me which corner I accidentally twisted.

EDIT: Here's another example. Twist the UFR corner and do an antisune on a solved cube. Let's say I'm about to do OLL and upon inspecting the LL corners, I realise that one of the corners need twisting. So I twist the UFR corner. Now I do a sune and my cube is solved. I *know* when doing a sune will give me a PLL skip. However many cubers don't know this and may obtain an advantage by chance.

However:

--5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

You may say that an "advantage" was given, but by accident.

But:

- 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.