[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♣!
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♣!
 Pass  2NT   Pass  6NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

S3 SK S6 S9
DQ D2 D7 D3
DJ D6 D8 D4
DK DT DA D5
D9 S2 C6 H2


Your policy is to adjust unfinished boards where possible. This board is unfinished, no one at fault, expert players.

Do you adjust this board? If so, what result do you give?


tyia
jb

[inquiry]

Even if you policy is to adjust to a "final result", this one feels a little ackward to adjust. Logically, the play is to hook WEST twice in hearts, that way you win when 2+ hearts to the Queen is on side. To hook the other way fails if the suit is 4-2 with four to the queen behind, but of course is hearts are 3-3 you can hook either way. The only play that works is to cash the heart AK, and that is not going to happen, although arguably it might.

Depending upon your policy, the solution might be to award EW Average+ (for surely 6NT is going down and NS average minus, or assign the result as 6NT-1 on the "logical play". However, ask yourself this, if the heart queen had been onside with WEST would you have assigned 6NT=? If so, to be consistent, you have little choice but to assign 6NT-1 when it is with EAST.

Adjusting scores for unfiinished hands is a tricky proposition.

[paulg]

Very tough. I'd be inclined to give them 50% of 6NT= and 50% of 6NT-1 - not possible directly with the software but hopefully one of the scores (A, A-, A+) approximates to this.

If West had not discarded a heart then I would have gone for 6NT-1.

Paul

[Gerben42]

Very tough! You MUST adjust if you decide no one was at fault since 40% + 40% is less than 100%. A real result will have the sums add up to 100%.

After the ♥ discard how likely is it that declarer makes it? Without it I'd say around 0% but now... I'll probably give 50% to both, assuming that 6NT making is a great score and 6NT down is a terrible one.

[jillybean]

Gerben42, on Aug 29 2006, 09:46 AM, said:

Very tough! You MUST adjust if you decide no one was at fault since 40% + 40% is less than 100%. A real result will have the sums add up to 100%.

I dont think there is any requirement to assign scores that equal 100%.
When assigning artificial scores I look only at the cause and follow Law12:

A- (40%) to a contestant directly at fault
A (50%) to a contestant only partially at fault
A+ (60%) + to a contestant in no way at fault

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Aug 29 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♣!
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♣!
 Pass  2NT   Pass  6NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

S3 SK S6 S9
DQ D2 D7 D3
DJ D6 D8 D4
DK DT DA D5
D9 S2 C6 H2


Your policy is to adjust unfinished boards where possible. This board is unfinished, no one at fault, expert players.

Do you adjust this board? If so, what result do you give?


tyia
jb

I'm more curious about the bidding. Can anyone explain it?

I think an expert declarer will (probably) make this after West pitches a heart.

[barmar]

inquiry, on Aug 29 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

Even if you policy is to adjust to a "final result", this one feels a little ackward to adjust. Logically, the play is to hook WEST twice in hearts, that way you win when 2+ hearts to the Queen is on side. To hook the other way fails if the suit is 4-2 with four to the queen behind, but of course is hearts are 3-3 you can hook either way. The only play that works is to cash the heart AK, and that is not going to happen, although arguably it might.

Doesn't this change once West discards a ♥? Now the only reason to finesse West is if you suspect he discarded from FIVE to the Q.

[jtfanclub]

barmar, on Aug 30 2006, 10:46 AM, said:

Doesn't this change once West discards a ♥? Now the only reason to finesse West is if you suspect he discarded from FIVE to the Q.

I don't trust the last card played before the hand ended. It may be that the screen flashing to the tourney room surprised the player, and it took his click.

I would adjust to -1.

[mycroft]

Bidding - looks a lot like the system I play sometimes:

1C - Strong artifical and forcing
1NT - 8-13, no 5-card suit, no 4441
2C - "stayman"
2NT - 11-13, any 4-4-3-2 (? here is where they deviate from us, we bid 3D to show D+M)
6NT - punt

Seems reasonable in a Precision context.

[blackshoe]

"Bridge is a timed event." And so it is. But the unit of timing is the round, not the board.

Quote

Law 8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

So we have a problem caused by the software, which does not allow us to play bridge in accordance with the laws. Even so, IMO we have to do the best we can to stay within the laws of the game. So, if the software won't allow the board to be finished, it seems to me we go to

Quote

Law 12A2: The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88).

OP said it's IMPs, so IMO Law 88 (which deals with matchpointed pairs or individuals) doesn't apply. Law 86A, however, says

Quote

When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is +3 IMPs or -3 IMPs respectively.

OP said no one was at fault. Law 12C1 says

Quote

When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

Therefore, adjust the score to +3 IMPs for both sides. Note that the result(s) that might have been obtained on this board are irrelevant.

Again my opinion, but it seems to me the "irregularity" mentioned in Law 12C1 is, in this case, the failure of the software to allow the game to be played IAW the laws. Call me a pedant, if you like.

[mike777]

[jillybean]

mike777, on Aug 30 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

How can there be no fault with an unfinished hand? I assume there is some "fault"

There was no td call to say a player was slow, stuck, missing or not responding to a query etc. In these instances I can only assume both pairs were equally 'at fault' or the delay was seen as acceptable, a complicated bidding sequence or play. When a board is unfinished the software assigns A- to both pairs, the td can of course review and change this result to make it equitable.

I encourage players to call me if their opps are holding up the play. If I had received a call this board would have been adjusted A+/A=-. The non offending pair are then protected, if an actual result cannot be given the adjustment is A+

jb

[keylime]

I'm of the view that since there wasn't any reports of irregularities that A- may be the only possible score to be assessed.

[blackshoe]

keylime, on Aug 31 2006, 01:21 AM, said:

I'm of the view that since there wasn't any reports of irregularities that A- may be the only possible score to be assessed.

On what basis?

[Gerben42]

I guess on the basis of that they were slow so they should have been playing faster? I think 50% - 50% is enough for that. Besides since it's better than 40% - 40% they will be happier

However if they complain that the contract would always / never have made and that they deserve a top for that, don't get into the discussion!

[jillybean]

Gerben42, on Aug 31 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

However if they complain that the contract would always / never have made and that they deserve a top for that, don't get into the discussion!

This is where I am having some problems. When you do make adjustments, people then expect all unfinished boards, failures to alert etc to be adjusted. I am having very interesting discussions regarding expert/double dummy play of unfinished boards but its not always helpful when making a decision to adjust.

Without the help of an appeal committee I make adjustments on what I consider to be obvious lines, perhaps not expert lines but consistent. I now think this one should have been left A-=

jb

[bid_em_up]

blackshoe, on Aug 31 2006, 01:55 PM, said:

keylime, on Aug 31 2006, 01:21 AM, said:

I'm of the view that since there wasn't any reports of irregularities that A- may be the only possible score to be assessed.

On what basis?

On the basis that since neither side call to protect themselves because the other side was using too much time, both sides are equally at fault. Obviously, one side must have been taking too much time (even if on the prior board).

If you want protection, call the director before, not after. No adjustment needs to be made.

[jillybean]

bid_em_up, on Sep 1 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

If you want protection, call the director before, not after. No adjustment needs to be made.

Calling the TD when there is a delay is the best thing for players to do and no adjustment may be correct in this case but not as a general rule.

I think we should strive to adjust all unfinished boards to an actual result, TD call or not. We don’t want to punish people for not calling the TD, our job is to restore equity when there has been an irregularity. Allowing a board to end with an artificial score (A-) when there was an obvious result (1-2-3-4? tricks remaining) is not equitable.

Its not ideal, its not in strict compliance with the laws but I think it is the best approach in an online situation.

jb

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Sep 1 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 1 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

If you want protection, call the director before, not after. No adjustment needs to be made.

Calling the TD when there is a delay is the best thing for players to do and no adjustment may be correct in this case but not as a general rule.

I think we should strive to adjust all unfinished boards to an actual result, TD call or not. We don’t want to punish people for not calling the TD, our job is to restore equity when there has been an irregularity. Allowing a board to end with an artificial score (A-) when there was an obvious result (1-2-3-4? tricks remaining) is not equitable.

Its not ideal, its not in strict compliance with the laws but I think it is the best approach in an online situation.

jb

Jilly,

I am speaking only with regards to the board in question.

In this case, the result is not obvious, now is it?

Its one thing if one side is playing a trump contract, with all high trumps, and time runs out. Or if the other side has 2 inescapable winners defeating the contract. In these cases, the "normal" result wasnt in question. Sure, its fine to adjust these boards to a "normal" result, however....

In this case, 6N may or may not make. Although, I happen to believe that "may" is more probable after the heart discard, it certainly isnt guaranteed. An expert declarer may well finesse West for the heart Q after the heart pitch. An expert East may well have pitched a heart from Qxx(x) hoping to induce a finesse into the wrong hand, knowing that any "normal" play in hearts will win for declarer.

Mind you, after the round has changed, North has seen the hands and can easily claim "I was finessing West for the heart Q". Well, sure you are, now that you've seen the layout.

The only way to "encourage" people to call the TD first, is if they suffer the consequences of not doing so a few times. Otherwise, you will continually find yourself in this position along with the position of trying to explain why an adjustment was made for one board for person A, but no adjustment is being made for person B.

Since neither side called a director until after the fact, what adjustment is there to be made? Both sides are the "offending" sides. One for taking too much time, the other for not calling the director to protect their rights. And although it hasnt been said, if I had to make a bet, I will put my money that is North (or South) who is both the party that took too much time, and the party that is claiming they would make.

On this board, since a proper result cannot be reasonably determined, both sides should get AVE-, imo.

[jillybean]

bid_em_up, on Sep 1 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

In this case, the result is not obvious, now is it?

Yes, I agree 100%. I should not have tried to adjust this board or considered the expert, double dummy lines of play.
Its always a learning process what I reasonably can and cant adjust.

bid_em_up, on Sep 1 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

The only way to "encourage" people to call the TD first, is if they suffer the consequences of not doing so a few times.  Otherwise, you will continually find yourself in this position along with the position of trying to explain why an adjustment was made for one board for person A, but no adjustment is being made for person B.

Since neither side called a director until after the fact, what adjustment is there to be made? Both sides are the "offending" sides.  One for taking too much time, the other for not calling the director to protect their rights.  And although it hasnt been said, if I had to make a bet, I will put my money that is North (or South) who is both the party that took too much time, and the party that is claiming they would make.

No I don’t agree that we should be “teaching” people by penalizing them if they don’t call the TD. If there is an obvious result I think it is completely wrong not to adjust. Who are we to say that the opps werent holding up the last 2 tricks, unclear of a claim or simply stuck for the last minute?

The natural consequence of not calling the TD is that the board is unfinished, there is no obvious line and both pairs receive A-. I always tell these players that if they had called me they would have been protected and receive at worst actual result or A+.

IMHO penalizing players to teach them to call the td is arrogant and unnecessary, while giving unfair advantage to others.

jb