[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

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"

Unfortunately that would be the wrong ruling.
The 10-second exchange was more along the lines of:

"East has at least 9 cards in the majors, West at most 7, play West for the Jack of clubs, 10 tricks, OK?"
"Sure"
"OK"

But that isn't really good enough, it's important to think about other ways the play might have gone. For example, what if West were to cash the ace of spades and switch to a diamond - that might make declarer think that diamonds were 4-1, and play clubs differently? Except that a diamond switch is so implausible I don't think it's worth discussing.

I had the advantage that at the table I played the hand in a club partial after East showed a weak hand with both majors, so I had already thought about the play.

But if you haven't thought about it, it's very easy to give wrong snap decisions.

[Pig Trader]

An interesting thread. I would just add a couple of bridge-related opinions:

In England, at National or County events, it is very common nowadays to encounter 2♦ openings that show 5+/4+ in the majors with a weak hand.

Several have commented that they consider the 3♠ and 4♠ bids by E/W as being wild or gambling etc. Given the MI from South, it appears to me to be reasonable for East and West to bid as they did. Although East is only mid-range in HCP (if playing 5-9HCP), he has seen partner give preference to his longer suit. West's raise may be slightly aggressive but the TNT could well be such as to justify it.

Barrie

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Aug 31 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

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"

This is a perfect example of why this process is flawed.

A so-called 50-50 is extremely unlikely to be 50-50. There is almost always a clue that suggests taking the 50-50 one way or another. Thus making it 100-0. Not 100% likely to succeed but 100% right to take the finesse one way rather than the other. This is further complicated by the fact that the 100-0 at this table is 0-100 at another table - I saw one of these recently where a Grand Slam was reached at two tables missing the trump queen in a nine-card fit with a two-way finesse possibility. At one table one opponent had made a weak jump overcall so it was reasonable to finesse their partner for the queen. At the other table the same hand chose to take a more constructive action showing more values and so it was reasonable to finesse that player (the opposite of the first case) for the queen.

Frances has given some reasons why 50-50 is wrong in this particular case.

A 50-50 split is likely to be wrong. A 50-50 conclusion by the director or the appeal committee is a lazy ruling when there are clues that suggest finessing one way or another. It would only be correct if 50% is the a reflection of the probability that this player at this table would finesse in each direction.

[cherdanno]

Seems indeed a good example -- if a very experienced TD thinks this is an obvious 50-50 weighted score, this does seem to suggest that weighted scores invite sloppy (and thus wrong) score adjustments.

[bluejak]

Yes, but you miss the point. What you call a sloppy adjustment does not matter too much, because it is practical. Ok, if I had been on the Committee and Frances would have said that, I expect I would have said "Ok, how about 70-30". It makes so little difference. Saying 0-100 or 100-0 might be correct shows why 50-50 is better. It is this strange idea of worrying about details and forgetting the main problem that is not good for the game.

No weighting is technically perfect, I expect. But it does not matter, and we are involved on this set of forums - fora - forapodes - whatever in the practical approach to rulings.