[OleBerg]

A very theoretical example, just to test if my understanding is correct.

As a TD, I make the ruling that a score has to be adjusted (assume all criteria are met).

I want to adjust the score, so that a pair, instead of defending a partial, has to declare a doubled, vulnerable contract.

The contract is one of in toptricks, with no reasonable possbileties of misdefence.

Furthermore, declarer has to make two decisions on the hand, both of which are he is 50% to get right. And both times a wrong guess will mean an extra undertrick.

My adjustment would be, that he will get one wrong and one right.

Right?

[helene_t]

Assuming the two decisions are independent, you might adjust to a weighted result of
25% both right
25% one right
25% the other right
25% both wrong

[peachy]

Too theoretical for me
If it was a case were OS is assigned the worst of it, then give "the worst" of it, and assume he takes both of those chances, unless it was a near insane line of play. A real example with the hands would be better suited for discussion, IMO

[OleBerg]

helene_t, on Jun 5 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

Assuming the two decisions are independent, you might adjust to a weighted result of
25% both right
25% one right
25% the other right
25% both wrong

Sounds very reasonable. It wouldn't make much of a difference here, but if there were three 50% guesses, the difference would matter. (As it would roughly amount to "getting 1½ og them right.") And even more usefull, when the numbers move away from 50/50.

Still, I'd like to hear from some lawmen.

[campboy]

As Helene says, in a jurisdiction where weighted scores are permitted, if you are not sure how many tricks might be taken you should always give an adjusted score. It is normal to give some sympathetic weighting to the NOS, so if there was a single 50-50 guess on the hand I might give 55% getting it right and 45% getting it wrong. Here, assuming they are making 9,10 or 11 tricks as they get none, one or both guesses right, I would give something like

30% 11 tricks
50% 10 tricks
20% 9 tricks.

You should certainly not adjust the score to making exactly one guess, since it is entirely possible that the difference in matchpoints between 11 and 10 tricks is much more than the difference between 9 and 10, so by giving them the expected number of tricks you have given them much less than the expected matchpoint score.

[mink]

I have often observed that if one finesse works in one suit, then a second finesse in another suit works in the opposite direction. Considering that opps' honors tend to be distributed equally, this observation seems to make sense to me. That means that sometimes to guesses that seem to be independent are not really independent of each other.

Karl

[bluejak]

OleBerg, on Jun 5 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 5 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

Assuming the two decisions are independent, you might adjust to a weighted result of
25% both right
25% one right
25% the other right
25% both wrong

Sounds very reasonable. It wouldn't make much of a difference here, but if there were three 50% guesses, the difference would matter. (As it would roughly amount to "getting 1½ og them right.") And even more usefull, when the numbers move away from 50/50.

Still, I'd like to hear from some lawmen.

No, I think this is the wrong approach. You are not getting 1.5 of them correct, you consider what would happen if the hand was played 100 times, So you decide each two-way guess would be got right 50 times, wrong 50 times. Allow a little benefit of the doubt bias and I agree with campboy's figures.

May I remind everyone to please tell us what jurisdiction? Several posts including mine have assumed this is a Law 12C1C jurisdiction not a Law 12C1E one. A different approach would be taken in North America, for example.

[gwnn]

for three guesses there are

12.5% 3 right guesses
37.5% 2
37.5% 1
12.5% 0

But I think it's right to take into account that you are more likely to make a right guess after you got the information about another guess.

Say this effect is

50-50 for the first guess
55-45 for the second and
60-40 for the third.

Then 3 right guesses are 16.5%
2 is 41%
1 is 33.5% and
0 is 9%

If the effect is steeper, say

50-50
60-40
70-30

3: 21%
2: 44%
1: 29%
0: 6%

So maybe it's OK to say 15% 40% 35% 10%?

[dburn]

A difference that may be no difference (I am unsure) is whether we are adjusting the score so that the NOS have to play this doubled contract, or so that the OS do.

The "benefit of doubt" mentioned by Bluejak is usually held to work in favour of the NOS. This may be a relic of the earlier Laws in which the NOS got the best of "likely" results while the OS got the worst of "at all probable" results (of course, these Laws may not be "earlier" at all in certain jurisdictions - they may still be the law).

Suppose for example that barring "cheating" (such as misinformation) by the OS, the NOS would sometimes reach a slam in notrump that relied on playing a suit of AJx facing K10x for three tricks. Under the "old" Laws both sides received plus or minus 990. Under the "new" Laws, what I do is give the OS minus 990 and the NOS some percentage of plus 990, some percentage of plus 490, some percentage of plus 460 and some percentage of minus 50.

Is this wrong?

[bluejak]

Under what Law, pray?

[blackshoe]

It seems like you've ruled, for the NOS, under Law 12C2c, and for the OS under Law 12C2e. I don't think you can do that — I think that when you rule under 12C2e, you give whatever weighting you expect to restore equity to both sides. That's how I understand it. Of course, coming from the primary "certain jurisdiction" where the "old" 12C2c rule is still in effect, perhaps I've got it wrong myself.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Jun 5 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

It seems like you've ruled, for the NOS, under Law 12C2c, and for the OS under Law 12C2e. I don't think you can do that — I think that when you rule under 12C2e, you give whatever weighting you expect to restore equity to both sides. That's how I understand it. Of course, coming from the primary "certain jurisdiction" where the "old" 12C2c rule is still in effect, perhaps I've got it wrong myself.

Sure I can. For Law 12C1e gives me (as an agent of the Regulating Authority) the power to apply "all or part of the following procedure..."

So I give the NOS what "equity" tells me to give them per Law 12C1c, and I give the OS a bottom per Law 12C1e(ii). Since that's what they both deserve, there isn't a problem - unless, of course, Bluejak is praying to a different Deity than mine.

[campboy]

The EBU website sez:

Quote

12C1( c)  The concept of ‘weighted’ adjusted scores becomes the norm in England. It has been in place since 2000 as an option but it now replaces the current law 12C2. 12C1(e) does not apply in England.

Presumably what whoever wrote that means by "12C1(e) does not apply" is that 12C1(e) does apply, giving the EBU the discretion to use some or all of the procedure laid out therein, but that the EBU has elected not to use any of it (nor to permit TDs to do so).

[dburn]

campboy, on Jun 5 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

The EBU website sez:

Quote

12C1( c)  The concept of ‘weighted’ adjusted scores becomes the norm in England. It has been in place since 2000 as an option but it now replaces the current law 12C2. 12C1(e) does not apply in England.

Presumably what whoever wrote that means by "12C1(e) does not apply" is that 12C1(e) does apply, giving the EBU the discretion to use some or all of the procedure laid out therein, but that the EBU has elected not to use any of it (nor to permit TDs to do so).

Perhaps. But the EBU can't elect not to use any of it - they have to use "all or part of" it. Now, they (in the personae of their Directors or ACs) can if they like use 12C1c to weight the scores so that the cheats get some of plus 50 for 6NT down one, or they can if they like use 12C1e(ii) so that the cheats get a bottom.

Many of the weighted scores actually awarded are of the form "EW minus 620 for cheating, NS plus 620 some of the time and plus 170 the rest for being innocent but suspected of timidity in the auction". No one bothers to give NS some of plus 140 as a "reward" for not only being unable to bid but also unable to play, and no one ever gives them any of minus 100 for being the latter but not the former.

This is pretty much standard operating procedure among ACs. If it's illegal, I think we should be told (but discreetly, or a class action on behalf of one of a thousand or so wronged cheats will follow).

[blackshoe]

Perhaps my grasp of English suffers from, well, not being English, but it seems to me that

Quote

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following proce- dure in place of {c}:

means that the RA may replace some or all of {c} with provisions from {e}, or may do none of that. So I don't think "the EBU can't elect not to use any of it" is correct.

[PeterAlan]

Quote

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ( c):

It seems to me (pace dburn and blackshoe) that this is, typically, wording that strictly speaking is ambiguous, but that meant to say (given the use of the word "may"):

Quote

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply the following procedure in place of ( c) and, if it does so, may apply all or part of it:

However, this still leaves the problem of the words "in place of ( c)", because they strongly suggest that if (e) is followed, in whole or in part, then ( c) does not apply at all.

Perhaps this analysis belongs in the "Changes" forum, but it seems to me to be yet another instance where the wording of the Laws does not quite manage to achieve the precision that their subsequent interpretation evidently requires. Of course when the words do achieve this, they may nevertheless be held overall to mean something entirely different (Law 16B for example), but that's another story!

PeterAlan

[campboy]

dburn, on Jun 6 2010, 06:45 AM, said:

This is pretty much standard operating procedure among ACs. If it's illegal, I think we should be told (but discreetly, or a class action on behalf of one of a thousand or so wronged cheats will follow).

Do you not consider that the information publicly available on the EBU website under "how the new laws affect TDs", and in section 12.1.4 of the White Book*, constitutes "being told"?

*"The Laws allow for an alternative approach via Law 12C1E. The Regulating Authority has decided that Law 12C1C applies and not Law 12C1E in the English Bridge Union."

[bluejak]

The trouble is, as BLML has found out, that if people wish to find ambiguities in wording that the vast majority thinks is as clear as day, then someone can.

Law 12C1C applies in England: the Orange book says so. Thus the RA has not applied the wording of Law 12C1E to England.

dburn, on Jun 6 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

Sure I can. For Law 12C1e gives me (as an agent of the Regulating Authority) the power to apply "all or part of the following procedure..."

No, it gives the RA the power, not you.

dburn, on Jun 6 2010, 06:45 AM, said:

Many of the weighted scores actually awarded are of the form "EW minus 620 for cheating, NS plus 620 some of the time and plus 170 the rest for being innocent but suspected of timidity in the auction". No one bothers to give NS some of plus 140 as a "reward" for not only being unable to bid but also unable to play, and no one ever gives them any of minus 100 for being the latter but not the former.

This is pretty much standard operating procedure among ACs. If it's illegal, I think we should be told (but discreetly, or a class action on behalf of one of a thousand or so wronged cheats will follow).

It is not standard operating procedure: please do not insult other Chairman of ACs who follow the laid down regulations. And you [and they] have been told the regulation and the non-applicability of Law 12C1E by the Committee you sit on. So other Chairmen and their ACs apply Law 12C1C.