[bluejak]

Of course not: if there is no MI there is no adjustment. However, if E/W were claiming that I think it would have said so in the OP.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

There seems to be MI here, I doubt it made much difference, rule it something like 2♠ doubled 75% of the time, 1♠ doubled 25% of the time.

Our of curiosity, what is the lowest % chance of an action which the director should include in an adjusted score? I was told once on this forum 3% is too low. I only ask because my opinion is it would be something more like 5% to 95% in this case, so I wonder if the director (if he agrees with my estimates) should even bother.

[RMB1]

jdonn, on Oct 26 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

Our of curiosity, what is the lowest % chance of an action which the director should include in an adjusted score? I was told once on this forum 3% is too low. I only ask because my opinion is it would be something more like 5% to 95% in this case, so I wonder if the director (if he agrees with my estimates) should even bother.

I don't think we would do 95/5 or even 90/10 but we might use 5%/10% if there were multiple outcomes to be weighted. For example 60/20/10/10 or perhaps 40/40/10/5/5.

Even where there are multiple outcomes to be weighted I don't think we would go below 4%. For example, might reach 3NT 20% of the time, might make 10 tricks 20% of the time; giving 64% of +150, 16% of +180, 16% of +400, 4% of +430.

Robin

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

'Better minor' is unambiguous, and the fact that a large percentage of people in England say 'better minor' and play something else does not stop it being MI if the do not play better minor.

I had thought that the EBU had a regulation similar to the ACBL's "explaining by naming a convention is inadequate', but all I could find in the OB along this line is more specific than that. Ah well, that's life.