[Rossoneri]

I agree with Jdonn.

A+/A- simply just reeks of laziness from the director...I would tend to agree with a weighted ruling between 6H making and 4H+2.

[david_c]

JoAnneM, on Nov 25 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

There is a good reason to hate this ruling - it is illegal.  Just as ACBL doesn't give split scores for hands played it doesn't give avg+/avg-, it gives actual adjustments.  Avg+/Avg- is for hands not played or fouled boards.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong - actually just a few months out of date. Law 12C1(d) in the new lawbook allows a TD to award an artificial score when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious". Since this condition is a matter of [the TD's] opinion, we can no longer say the ruling is illegal, only that it shows extremely bad judgement. As others have said, it is lazy directing.

[Elianna]

JoAnneM, on Nov 25 2008, 08:46 AM, said:

There is a good reason to hate this ruling - it is illegal.   Just as ACBL doesn't give split scores for hands played it doesn't give avg+/avg-, it gives actual adjustments.   Avg+/Avg- is for hands not played or fouled boards.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

ACBL allows split scores, just not weighted between them.

So you can give one side one score, and another a different score, but you can't do percentages of one score or another.

You can look at NABC casebooks for evidence of split scores.

Usually directors don't like to give them, especially at clubs, because "it confuses the players". Or they don't know how to input them to ACBLscore. Also, I've seen directors mess up the criterion for how to decide which score each pair gets, and it's different for the offending side vs. nonoffending side. I don't have the rule book in front of me to quote from, though.

But I agree that if a result was reached at a table (so the board was deemed playable) that A+/A- does not seem to be an acceptable result. From my memory of the laws it's illegal, but I'd have to look that up to be sure. And looking at the next post, I guess that's changed.

[bidule4]

assuming there was MI

law 75 leads to law 12:

law 12 C 1 (e)
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending
side is the most favourable result that was likely had the
irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most
unfavourable result that was at all probable.

(http://www.worldbrid...awsComplete.pdf)

is 6H= "likely" ?

maybe

is 6H= "at all probable" ?

yes

[MFA]

I don't know ACBL rules (and I have been grossly surpriced before), but with normal () rules, this is likely a weighted score between 4♥ and 6♥. NS are not exactly on track towards slam at the moment, so a full 6♥ seems a bit much.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL does not permit weighted adjusted scores (Law 12C1 ( c )) in Zone 2, instead using Law 12C1(e), which speaks of "most favorable result that was likely" for the non-offending side, and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the offending side.

Most other RAs, AFAIK, do permit weighted scores.

Using 12C1(d) seems to be deprecated by most (non-ACBL, at least) TDs with whom I've discussed it.