[NickRW]

mjj29, on 2011-May-31, 01:43, said:

If that hand bids 3D, what hands will bid 2D that would not have opened originally?

Well, though I said that we open aggressively with shape, with balanced hands, particularly 4333 shapes, we are very conservative. Further I think that point is well known to all the regular players at this club. Change it to a 4432 shape with the same honours and we would have called it invitational, but not an opener. Change the ♣9 to a jack and we would also call it invitational.

[mrdct]

NickRW, on 2011-May-31, 01:38, said:

weighted results don't seem to be compatible with Scorebridge - eugh - it seems that to get this scored right will waste another hour putting it all into Pairs Scorer - assuming that will do it either.

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

Assuming the datum calculations drop the outliers, the datum won't actually change in this case (NS -50 if the top and bottom scores are excluded) so the only change is you score 3 imps on the board instead of 4 imps which doesn't actually affect the finishing position of either of the pairs involved. Although if you run with my suggested procedural penalty, say 3 imps, that will drop you down to =8th.

Nick, the path to redemption begins with admitting one's wrong-doing. The consensus is quite clear that the explanation of "weak" was an infraction and the sooner you come to terms with that the easier it will be for you to reconnect with your inner being and move on with the important task of developing a more sensible raise structure in competitive auctions by a passed-hand.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on 2011-May-31, 00:21, said:

"Weak" in many places is defined as "high-card strength below that of an average hand" clearly 10 or 11 hcp are not below average strictly in terms of high card strength.

That is precisely how "weak" is defined in section 171.1 of the EBU White Book.

[NickRW]

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 02:27, said:

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

As far as I recall, and I could be wrong here, that isn't how it is supposed to be done.

Assuming that the ruling is 25% of 3s-1 by E, 50% of 3d making by N and 25% of 3d-1 by N, then what is supposed to happen is that the board is effectively separately scored with each of these results and they are then weighted accordingly. Not weight the scores for that one table and combine them into a single score which is then compared at 100% weighting with the other tables.

Scorebridge can only do it by the latter method - which you are suggesting is correct - but which I think it wrong.

Anyway, PairsScorer can accept weighted inputs for a board. However, it doesn't show you how it arrives at its eventual score and, in this case, makes no difference at all, compared to 100% of the table result. Worse, when I upload the result to BridgeWebs, though it shows the correct ordering of the pairs, no total IMPs is displayed on the web. And on this board, Bridgewebs seems to be incapable of displaying any result at all for this table for this board.

So the upshot seems to be that this has been a complete waste of everyone's time and that weighted scores are something that appears in a rule book which are obviously so little used in practice as to have been effectively ignored by the software developers and are, in fact, unusable in the real world.

Anyway, as for "moving on", I loathe being a complainant in a judgement ruling. I doubly loathe being the person complained about. I triply loathe being the poor director who has to sort out the argument. And I really, truly, utterly detest being involved on two counts. This puts me off the game big time. Right now the only place I want to move on to is nowhere near a card table.

[mamos]

I'd like to comment on some of the posts in this thread. The topic is interesting and although in my opinion the issues are fairly simple there has been a lot of muddled thinking which needs correction.

Initially was there MisInformation? (MI) Yes I think is a clear answer. Alerts and explanations are for the benefit of your opponents. The idea is that you do the utmost to make them understand your agreements. NS have demonstrably failed here. It was possible that South had deviated from partnership agreements, but North has told us that he agrees with the choice of the bid. My understanding is that "inverted minors" means that a partnership swaps the meaning of the sequences 1 minor 2 minor and 1 minor 3 minor. I don't think most players would respond with 2 ♦ to an opening bid of 1♦with this hand. - I'd guess the norm is 6-9 points. If your partnership "by agreement" includes something stronger than this then your explanation needs to reflect this. If I was your local TD, I'd tell you clearly that you should improve your explanation to make it clear that hands like the one South held are included.

Number of tricks in 3♦ : You cannot assume that the traveller will be the fount of knowledge here - making nine tricks in 4♦ or 2♦ does not always equate to 3♦=. Players defend and play differently in different contracts - I'd guess this is especially true in Butler Pairs, where making/defeating contracts is much more significant in many cases then the extra trick in either declaring or defending. It's not always easy either to forget all four hands when you can see them and try to put yourself in declarer's position at the table. Watch some vugraph on BBO and you'll see what I mean.

So I would discuss this hand with other players and TDs, maybe take a poll about bidding 3♠ or even about the play in 3♦ but I expect I's adjust - to 3♦= sometimes and 3♦ -1 about the same amount of time as making and table result only a small amount of the time. I expect that this would be quite low -- after all East asked about 3♦ so we know he was considering Pass. 40% 40% 20%? - maybe say.

Butler and weighted scores is complicated if you don't have a scoring program (PairScorer - Jeff Smith http://homepages.nil...co.uk/~jasmith/ ) that does it properly because you need to work out the score for each of the assigned results and weight the outcomes. Technically this involves weighting every pairs' score. It's worth downloading PairScorer just to play with the weighted score facility. When the scores are large or extreme they will have quite an effect on the datum especially in small fields.

Mike Amos

[Vampyr]

NickRW, on 2011-May-30, 19:21, said:

Well, exactly. You're hitting the nail on the head. Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength - and it was my partner's judgement that her hand was, indeed, below invitational strength. And I am not about to criticise her judgement in context. Indeed I might have called exactly the same thing if I were South playing with the agreements we've got. I acknowledge it is close. I acknowledge that some others might disagree.

Very strange agreements. Partner has passed with a hand that some would open with a weak NT, and is below invitational strength? It sounds like your disclosure on a lot more auctions might be incorrect. Playing 2♦ as strong, by the way, just what kind of hand does a passed partner need in order to bid it? It doesn't seem as if there is one.

Just noticed that this question was asked before, but the answer is not really satisfactory. Changing the ♣9 to the J produces anyone's weak NT.

Quote

1NT and 2NT would have been natural, but tending to deny a diamond fit. Since our 1♦ opener guarantees 4, they are - well - possible I suppose. But the same question arises - does South want to think of her hand as invitational or not - and you get the same close decision.

If close means not in the same universe, then yes.

Quote

2♥ would have suggested a 5 card suit.

Sorry, meant 2♠.

[mrdct]

I'd be surprised if it ever makes much difference to the result if you calculate a weighted result strictly according to the rules compared to coming with a approximation being a "real" bridge score that you can enter into your scoring program.

I think I had my earlier datum calculation wrong as the results on the board were: +100, -140, -50, -50, -50, -50, -110. Excluding the top and bottom, gives an average of 60 which by convention would round to -60. On each of the potential outcomes going into the weighted ruling, the datum is unchanged as the substituted score (+100, +110 or -50) will always be an outlier. So the only result affected is the table in question which gets 25% of 4 imps, 50% of 5 imps and 25% of 0 imps for a net of +3.5 imps compared to +4 imps for the table result and +4 imps if scored up as +70. So in reality it makes very little difference; particularly if the half-imp gets rounded-up which is probably what your other scoring program did.

I use scorebridge in my local bridge club and whenever we have a weighted ruling I just come up with a real bridge result as close as possible to that ruling and run with that, but I guess I better check with my National Authority now to see if that's kosher as we may be rendering our sessions ineligible for masterpoints or some other calamitous outcome by not doing it strictly by the book.

I think far from being a "complete waste of everyone's time", this thread has highlighted a serious practical problem with issuing weighted rulings in club duplicates where scoring programs simply can't cope with it.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 05:34, said:

I think far from being a "complete waste of everyone's time", this thread has highlighted a serious practical problem with issuing weighted rulings in club duplicates where scoring programs simply can't cope with it.

Perhaps. But the solution seems to be to use a scoring program that can cope with it.

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-31, 05:40, said:

Perhaps. But the solution seems to be to use a scoring program that can cope with it.

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon. At my local club we find that the seemless integration between scorebridge, bridgepads, bridgewebs and the ABF masterpoint centre just make everything a breeze. It rarely takes any more than 30 seconds at the end of the session to attach the hand record file, upload the webpage and email everyone in the session - probably less than 10 clicks - and then at month end the masterpoints get sent off just as easily and whenever we have a visitor we have a current version of the ABF player database in the system to pick up their ABF number and masterpoint status. My only peeve with scorebridge is the lack of Deep Finese analysis on the travellers.

[mjj29]

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 05:56, said:

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon. At my local club we find that the seemless integration between scorebridge, bridgepads, bridgewebs and the ABF masterpoint centre just make everything a breeze. It rarely takes any more than 30 seconds at the end of the session to attach the hand record file, upload the webpage and email everyone in the session - probably less than 10 clicks - and then at month end the masterpoints get sent off just as easily and whenever we have a visitor we have a current version of the ABF player database in the system to pick up their ABF number and masterpoint status. My only peeve with scorebridge is the lack of Deep Finese analysis on the travellers.

The EBU use Jeff Smith's scorers at all their events, for which the above is also true (although admittedly it does integrate better with bridgemates than bridgepads, I have used it with the latter fine though) - and it copes with weighted rulings properly.

In this case doing the weighting 'properly' may not make a significant difference (you shouldn't be rounding them though, I _believe_ fractional IMPs are perfectly fine) - but in other cases it will, so it's always good particularly when explaining on here to get it right.

Mike I think has covered all the other salient points admirably.

[billw55]

NickRW, on 2011-May-30, 19:21, said:

Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength

There is something in between "invitational" and "weak". It is called "constructive". It is simply wrong to claim that all hands less than invitational strength are weak by definition.

I think it is absolutely clear that this is a case of MI. "Weak" simply does not describe this hand in any bridge dictionary.

As to the adjustment (if any) - this is trickier, and I won't make an attempt. But lastly,

Quote

North was, in fact the director for the session

In such a case, the playing director should go out his way to rule against himself, when there is any shred of doubt whatsoever. This is in the interest of club harmony, and the membership's perception of equity from directors and management. I feel strongly that promoting good will in the club is more important than IMPs awarded to one pair, in one session. If you cheerfully rule against yourself, then at worst the incident is quickly forgotten, and at best you and the club gain lasting respect for your standard of ethics. Whereas, stand your ground and you may be perceived as self serving, and the club's reputation may be diminished. I know this is all irrelevant to the laws - but from a practical standpoint, it is the best choice.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that one word explanations of one's agreements can almost never be enough, even if opponents seem to accept them.

[campboy]

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 05:34, said:

I'd be surprised if it ever makes much difference to the result if you calculate a weighted result strictly according to the rules compared to coming with a approximation being a "real" bridge score that you can enter into your scoring program.

At Butler scoring this is probably true. At pairs scoring it is very far from true and could make almost a whole board difference.

An example: suppose everyone is making 3NT= for 400. As a result of a ruling you get an adjusted score based on playing in 4♠; this will probably make but could go off. Say you are given 90% of +420 and 10% of -50. Done the right way, that's 90% of a top and 10% of a bottom, so a 90% board. Done the wrong way that is +373 for a total bottom.

(At Butler the same example gives -0.1 imps done right or -1 imp done wrong.)

[nige1]

Many players would open on the South hand with another point, so if this hand fits the North-South understanding, then "Weak" without further elucidation is misinformation. On a heart lead, 3D is likely to be defeated one trick and, IMO that is how the director should rule.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2011-May-31, 06:47, said:

The EBU use Jeff Smith's scorers at all their events, for which the above is also true (although admittedly it does integrate better with bridgemates than bridgepads, I have used it with the latter fine though) - and it copes with weighted rulings properly.

Not all of the above is true -- it has Deep Finesse. These days I don't know whether I could manage with a hand record without Deep Finesse -- I spend more energy trying to find Deep Finesse's line than I do at the table

I do wish the EBU used Deep Finesse on a better level of analysis. At the local club our hand records note how many tricks can be taken by each player in each denomination. This helps to find the line to take/limit overtricks in lower-level contracts.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2011-May-31, 08:02, said:

Many players would open on the South hand with another point,

I must admit that I would open it as is.

[NickRW]

mamos, on 2011-May-31, 05:20, said:

Butler and weighted scores is complicated if you don't have a scoring program (PairScorer - Jeff Smith http://homepages.nil...co.uk/~jasmith/ ) that does it properly because you need to work out the score for each of the assigned results and weight the outcomes. Technically this involves weighting every pairs' score. It's worth downloading PairScorer just to play with the weighted score facility. When the scores are large or extreme they will have quite an effect on the datum especially in small fields.

Mike Amos

Does anyone actually bother to read what I've written? I tried doing it in PairsScorer - and that plus the combination of Bridgewebs to display the result definitely does not work.

Nick

[NickRW]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-31, 05:21, said:

Just noticed that this question was asked before, but the answer is not really satisfactory. Changing the ♣9 to the J produces anyone's weak NT.

Well, quite apart from the fact that I don't even play the weak NT with this partner, it doesn't count as an opening in our agreements.

Quote

Sorry, meant 2♠.

Why bother to answer. Nobody appears to be interested in any answer I give anyway.

[Vampyr]

NickRW, on 2011-May-31, 08:32, said:

Well, quite apart from the fact that I don't even play the weak NT with this partner, it doesn't count as an opening in our agreements.

So what? People who play strong NT aren't forced to pass when they are dealt a weak NT. They open in a suit and then bid NT at the lowest possible level. Surely you've heard of this method?

Quote

Why bother to answer. Nobody appears to be interested in any answer I give anyway.

People are interested, but it really doesn't matter how many ways you try to convince them that your explanation of "weak" was accurate, because it's simply not.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 05:56, said:

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon.

I have a spreadsheet that works out weighted scores for use with Scorebridge if you would like me to email it to you - then you can have the best of both worlds.