[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Aug 15 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

East, having originally agreed he was reaching for a pass card, later suggested he had actually passed but then changed his call.

It was written on the form by the TD, and stated by East, and not disputed by NS, that East had actually passed before 2NT was alerted, and then changed his call to 3S.

East got told off by both the TD and the AC for not calling the TD before changing his call.

This is not particularly relevant to the actual ruling, because it's pretty clear he would have been allowed to change it had either pair called the TD at the right time.

[bluejak]

Fouled board is dealt wth in Law 87, which also defines it.

No doubt Law 12C1D legalises the use of an artificial score. It is clearly a Law added by people who do not understand the simplicity of giving weighted scores, and I have no experience ever of a hand where I can possibly imagine it being used. I believe to continue to give correct assigned scores is correct, and this Law should be left to incompetent TDs.

[MFA]

NS gave misinformation about their system. It's perfectly allright not to have an agreed defense against unusual methods, but they should say so.

I would be willing to accept that 3♠ was caused by the misinformation and should be rolled back. This is supported also by the fact that east did reach for the pass card before the alert.

East's 3♠ is not a thing of beauty in the context of the actual explanation, but I don't think it's so far off (wild or gambling) that EW should be losing their compensation.

I would probably adjust to 5♣-2 (for both sides). It seems like a likely outcome that south will insist on clubs and they will end up in 5. Misguess the J to go down 2.

Penalty points should not be relevant on this board.

bluejak, on Aug 17 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Fouled board is dealt wth in Law 87, which also defines it.

No doubt Law 12C1D legalises the use of an artificial score.  It is clearly a Law added by people who do not understand the simplicity of giving weighted scores, and I have no experience ever of a hand where I can possibly imagine it being used.  I believe to continue to give correct assigned scores is correct, and this Law should be left to incompetent TDs.

I'm definitely having problems with assigning weighted scores. I think it's hard when the infraction occurs very early in the bidding, since one of the beauties of our game is the wide range of possible bids and plays in so many situations. 'What would have happened' could be hard to predict.

[bluejak]

The advantage of weighted scores is you do not have to predict what would have happened. Even in the example we have here, you think 5♣ is a reasonable score, and then you say misguess the clubs. Why? Why not weight the scores?

If you want to give me examples where weighting is difficult, fine, though I think you will find it difficult. But please make it a separate thread.

[Cascade]

The only examples where it is easy are when the weighting is 100% 0%.

[axman]

bluejak, on Aug 15 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Another familiar hand!

Scoring: S Pairs {MP}

----------2♦--P
-2♠-2NT-3♠-4♣
-4♠-Dbl--P---P
--P

---

2♦ was alerted, asked, and showed a weak hand with the majors. After the 2NT bid, East was reaching for the pass card when South alerted. East asked, South said it showed the minors, and East bid 3♠.

The TD found that N/S had no agreement about 2NT. East, having originally agreed he was reaching for a pass card, later suggested he had actually passed but then changed his call.

Of the seven rulings this is the only one which went to appeal.

fwiw if I were E in the described situation I cannot find any source of motivation to do other than pass over 2N. I therefore am of the belief that 3S is a consequence of the availability of a free change of call without penalty [an attractive nuisance, if you wish] and not in any way a consequence of the stated agreement to 2N.

[MFA]

bluejak, on Aug 18 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

The advantage of weighted scores is you do not have to predict what would have happened.  Even in the example we have here, you think 5♣ is a reasonable score, and then you say misguess the clubs. Why?  Why not weight the scores?

If you want to give me examples where weighting is difficult, fine, though I think you will find it difficult.  But please make it a separate thread.

Yes sure, I buy that. A weighted score between 5♣-2 and 5♣-1.

What irritates me here is that I know that many outcomes other than 5♣ would have been possible. But we can't really include them all in a big 7-8 way weighted score mix, can we? My 5♣ suggestion could be seen as an attempt at a 'middle of the road' compromise.

[FrancesHinden]

Back to this ruling.
When considering your potential weighted adjustment I think you have to be careful not to muddle two different possible rulings.

1. The MI ruling. If you decide that there was MI, and that there was damage (i.e. East might have passed over a 'no agreement' 2NT) then you have a potential weighted adjustment. In fact, I do think that this is a viciously difficult one to do - one of the hardest I've ever seen. You need to consider

• The probability that East will bid 3S anyway given 'no agreement' rather than 'natural'
  
• If East passes and South bids 3C, will North think that is natural non-forcing, natural forcing, or some sort of puppet bid
  
• If East passes and South bids 3C, will West bid 3S
  
• If East passes and South bids 3C and West bid 3S, will North or South act again
  
• If East bids 3S and South bids 4C and West bids 4S, what will North do with no UI?
  
• Maybe South will jump to 4C over 2NT and East's pass. Will North pass that?
  
• May South will jump to 4C over East's pass. Will North think that is Gerber?
  
• Maybe South will jump to 4C, West will bid 4S anyway and North will double
  
• How many tricks are NS going to make in the various possible club contracts?

Now, of course one can ask NS a few questions about their methods, but (given they didn't know what 2NT meant) they are likely to be rather unsure about how they would have interpreted other possible auctions.

2. The UI ruling. North has UI. On the actual auction, was doubling 4S suggested by the UI (yes) and did North have any logical alternatives (pass/5C)? If so, the final contract is 5C by South making some number of non-11 tricks.

Now you have to look at these two possible rulings. They are virtually independent. I believe the AC eventually decided that
- 5C by North is a logical alternative over double of 4S (I am aware not everyone agrees with this, but the AC thought it to be the case)
- South would not get clubs wrong given the two-suited opening
- 100% of 5C-1 is worse for NS, the offending side, than any possible sensible weighted ruling under the MI case.
- Therefore they didn't need to spend the entire dinner break discussing what weighted ruling to give.

[Cyberyeti]

This seems absurd to me, do we know how many cards and points the 2♦ showed ? W could have bid 3S first time and hasn't, any reason to suppose his hand is not a 3244 with just enough to prevent game making ? E has used his chance to change his bid to do something ridiculous, and W has expected E to hold a better or more shapely hand and bid on.

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

As to N's double, he is very minimum and 5♣ may not make, even with partner showing values with his free 4♣ bid so no problem there, as to S's pass, is it inconceivable partner has AK, xx, AJxxx, AQxx and does know what he's doing with the double, it's a fairly strange bid for partner to find with only one trump, and if he has two, then he's likely to only have 4 clubs as he'll have 2 hearts.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Aug 20 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

That they're trying to have their cake and eat it and have done something so ridiculous that the bad score is completely down to them. E has the clearest of clear passes over 2N whatever it means and the MI has not damaged them (unless it did in the play).

[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Aug 21 2009, 01:57 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

Quite a good question. And a quite educatinal thread, at least for me.

Initially I thought, that Law 12C1B applied:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending
side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the
consequence of its infraction only.

However, there is a trap here (nasty David ): There is an irregularity after EW has made their "wild and gambling action", namely the double of 4♠.

So if you rule that the double is illegal (as I would, it is one of more LA, this one (strongly) suggested by the UI that South has misunderstood 2NT.), EW gets compensated.

Quite logical actually; EW made a wild gamble, but it paid of, as North has a tremendous hand in support of clubs.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 20 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

That they're trying to have their cake and eat it and have done something so ridiculous that the bad score is completely down to them. E has the clearest of clear passes over 2N whatever it means and the MI has not damaged them (unless it did in the play).

See OleBerg's post. But also consider, what is wrong with "having their cake and eating it"? Why should they not? In most sports and mndsports, people who do something wrong get punished [a] by whatever rectification is provided by the Laws and [b] by the opponents getting a free shot [free play in American Football, advantage rule in Soccer and Rugby, and so on]. For some reason I cannot understand bridge seems harsher on the non-offenders. My view is that if you do not want the opponents to get an advantage, don't break the rules.

But we do have a basic attitude against free shots. Ok, but we must follow the Laws. The approach of "I do not like them to have a free shot so I shall not rule in their favour" is just not legal: follow the Laws, and only if they [notably 12C1B] deny redress do we deny redress.

[Cascade]

I too don't understand the distaste for free shots in bridge.

It is normal in many other sports and games.

[bluejak]

bluejak, on Aug 15 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

Scoring: S Pairs {MP}

----------2♦--P
-2♠-2NT-3♠-4♣
-4♠-Dbl--P---P
--P

---

2♦ was alerted, asked, and showed a weak hand with the majors.  After the East passed over the 2NT bid, South alerted.  East asked, South said it showed the minors, and East changed his call to 3♠ without calling the TD.

The TD found that N/S had no agreement about 2NT.  Of the seven rulings this is the only one which went to appeal.

I have amended the original posting here because of Frances' post. I expect I misunderstood what the TD told me.

Because it was felt that the correct description of 2NT was "no agreement", possibly with some comments about similar positions, the TD felt that since East was prepared to bid 3♠ over a 2NT showing the minors he might have bid 3♠ over a 2NT whose meaning was unclear. Might, of course, not would. It was also unclear whether West would then bid 4♠ but the possibility of the actual auction seemed reasonable.

A weighting considering these possibilities was worked out: looking back it is possible that we did not consider carefully enough the possibilities if either East or West passed, and North's use of UI was missed. While the final ruling is the TD's not mine I actually think I advised her fairly poorly on this one. I should not have overlooked the UI and the weightings if East or West had passed were poor.

The ruling was, for both sides:
.. 30% of 4♠ dbld -2, NS +300
+ 35% of 3♣ +1, NS +130
+ 35% of 3♣ =, NS +110

The AC amended it to, for both sides:
5♣ -1, NS -50

My only disagreement with the AC is not weighting the score since the number of tricks is nowhere near certain. Weighted scores are the norm, of course: I think the AC's decision means they believe the likelihood of N/S making ten tricks is over 95%, since they are the offending side. Sympathetic weighting means that there is a small 'benefit of doubt' bias to the non-offenders.

[axman]

bluejak, on Aug 21 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 20 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

That they're trying to have their cake and eat it and have done something so ridiculous that the bad score is completely down to them. E has the clearest of clear passes over 2N whatever it means and the MI has not damaged them (unless it did in the play).

See OleBerg's post. But also consider, what is wrong with "having their cake and eating it"?

Why should they not?

Its premise is the concept of getting something for nothing. To gain some appreciation of the ramifications of such a concept review the history of what Bernie Madoff accomplished. Excuse me, is accomplishing.

[bluejak]

Yes, I agree, if you break the rules, and you do not allow opponents to try to gain from it then you are supporting "something for nothing" for the rule-breakers.

[Cyberyeti]

OleBerg, on Aug 21 2009, 06:39 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 21 2009, 01:57 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 21 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

Thus EW certainly deserve to keep their score.

Under what Law?

Quite a good question. And a quite educatinal thread, at least for me.

Initially I thought, that Law 12C1B applied:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending
side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the
consequence of its infraction only.

However, there is a trap here (nasty David ): There is an irregularity after EW has made their "wild and gambling action", namely the double of 4♠.

So if you rule that the double is illegal (as I would, it is one of more LA, this one (strongly) suggested by the UI that South has misunderstood 2NT.), EW gets compensated.

Quite logical actually; EW made a wild gamble, but it paid of, as North has a tremendous hand in support of clubs.

This is the nub of it, I don't see anything wrong with N's double (this is a clear cut forcing pass auction if his 2N is 15-18 balanced or similar and he couldn't be a lot more unsuitable for bidding on, partner can be as good as QJ, Qx, xxxx, AKJxx and you're probably not making 3N or 5C but are taking 100-500 out of 4S), or south's pass of it for the reasons I expounded earlier.

Hence no irregularity occurred in my opinion after the 2N bid and dubious explanation, so I view EW's actions as sufficiently wild and gambling to deny them any redress.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Aug 21 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

The AC amended it to, for both sides:
5♣ -1, NS -50

My only disagreement with the AC is not weighting the score since the number of tricks is nowhere near certain. Weighted scores are the norm, of course: I think the AC's decision means they believe the likelihood of N/S making ten tricks is over 95%, since they are the offending side. Sympathetic weighting means that there is a small 'benefit of doubt' bias to the non-offenders.

Personally I think 10 tricks in clubs is a virtual certainty given the 2-suited opening, but it is also fair to say that the AC took such a very long time to get to the point of deciding the contract was 5C going off that there was possibly less enthusiasm to discuss the number of tricks at great length.

Not something to be pround of, but a fact of life.

[bluejak]

While understandable, it reminds me of the fact that a lot of people seem to think weighted rulings are more complicated, while I believe them to be less complicated than others.

I would have expected in the circumstances the number of tricks to be covered by the following ten second exchange:

"Number of tricks: two way club finesses: 50/50 ok?"
"Sure"
"Ok"