[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 12:45, said:

FYP

I think you misread my -admittedly not very clear- sentence. I will clarify:

- North did pass 2♦
- I would not pass 2♦ (if I thought it was natural). I would raise to 3♦.
- If West bids 2NT (Lebensohl) I would (obviously) still bid 3♦, and I would expect North to do that too, despite the fact that North passed the 2♦ in reality.

Rik

[RSliwinski]

I am a litle bit surprised that people quote minutes from 2003 when there are more recent Minutes regarding the same question, namely
Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday, 8th September 2009 link
12. The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected.
There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined:
(a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.

[sailoranch]

There was a similar discussion some time ago here.

[lamford]

sailoranch, on 2014-February-10, 16:54, said:

There was a similar discussion some time ago here.

That discussion was mainly about whether a player would pass out the hand given correct information, but no earlier bid came under scrutiny. I think we should adjust for the non-offenders, if, working back from the final call, they would have done better with correct information. I think FrancesHinden is correct here. East had the opportunity to pass out 2♦ and should not be denied that right because West would not have passed earlier with correct information. East was in a position to get a good score if he had a correctly completed NS system card, and I think that 2D-4 is the correct ruling.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-February-12, 08:47, said:

That discussion was mainly about whether a player would pass out the hand given correct information, but no earlier bid came under scrutiny. I think we should adjust for the non-offenders, if, working back from the final call, they would have done better with correct information. I think FrancesHinden is correct here. East had the opportunity to pass out 2♦ and should not be denied that right because West would not have passed earlier with correct information. East was in a position to get a good score if he had a correctly completed NS system card, and I think that 2D-4 is the correct ruling.

Why not 3♦-5? Do you think that North will pass after 1NT-2♦-2NT (Leb.)-?? when he thinks South has shown a lot of diamonds?

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-12, 13:14, said:

Why not 3♦-5? Do you think that North will pass after 1NT-2♦-2NT (Leb.)-?? when he thinks South has shown a lot of diamonds?

Rik

I agree that you give the non-offenders the better of the two results from passing it out or bidding immediately on the West hand. However, if West was looking at a correctly completed NS system card, he would pass, as would North. This particularly North did not think he was worth 3♦ so we should not adjust as though he did.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-February-12, 18:00, said:

I agree that you give the non-offenders the better of the two results from passing it out or bidding immediately on the West hand. However, if West was looking at a correctly completed NS system card, he would pass, as would North. This particularly North did not think he was worth 3♦ so we should not adjust as though he did.

It makes a big, no ... a huge difference to North, whether the auction is 1NT-2♦-Pass-?? or 1NT-2♦-2NT-??. In the first case North is in the contract he likes to be in, so he passes. In the second case, the opponents will get to a contract that North doesn't want to defend and he has the possibility to do something about that by bidding 3♦, the strain that he wants to play in.

I don't consider it very "active" bridge when North passes after 1NT-2♦-pass-??. But if North would not bid 3♦ after 1NT-2♦-2NT-??, it is time to start CPR.

Furthermore, the phrase "If North was looking at a correctly completed NS system card" does not apply. We are (supposed to be) beyond this stage: We are assigning an AS, all information about misunderstandings between NS is off and we are deciding what West would do when he has the information that 2♦ shows the majors, and nothing more. Of course, it depends on the EW agreements what West would bid, but west will try to show diamonds, e.g. by a Lebensohl 2NT. (The case gets even more interesting if EW play Rubensohl.)

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-12, 20:16, said:

I don't consider it very "active" bridge when North passes after 1NT-2♦-pass-??. But if North would not bid 3♦ after 1NT-2♦-2NT-??, it is time to start CPR.
Rik

I don't consider it very "active" bridge for West, holding a 1-1-6-5 hand to LEB to diamonds when South has shown the majors. In fact I consider it barking; not revealing any suit when the auction is likely to be bounced. West is cold for 6D opposite ♦ Axxx ♣ Ax and a major suit ace. What is he supposed to do if it goes 4H or 4S back to him? He might instead double 2D intending to compete on the next round. He might try 4NT, presumably the minors. The possibilities are numerous. 3D and pull 3NT to 4C is another shot. I think that the route to 3D-5 is somewhat unlikely. There is some clause somewhere about awarding an average plus when the possibilities are too numerous, and this may fall into that category. Your AS is just one of many possible auctions, and an unlikely one in my opinion. Of course, none of the players are that good, which makes deciding on what they would do harder. But it is hard for EW to do better than 2D-4, which is why I would stick with that.

And I note that it is MPs, and would be surprised if there was any difference between 2D-4 and 3D-5. And I would expect the former to be better than average plus for EW.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-February-13, 05:13, said:

There is some clause somewhere about awarding an average plus when the possibilities are too numerous, and this may fall into that category.
[]
And I would expect the former [2D-4] to be better than average plus for EW.

Fortunately, it is irrelevant whether 2♦-4 would be better or worse than average plus. There is no clause to award an "average plus" when possibilities are too numerous.

There is a clause that allows for an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1d) if the possibilities are too numerous. So, if the table result leads to, say, a score of 80%, and we expect that without the infraction the score would have been even better -but we can't assign a bridge result since the possibilities are too numerous- then we are allowed to give an AS of e.g. 90%.

Unfortunately, lots of directors are unaware of this and they are awarding average pluses left and right when they should award 90-10's or 50-50's.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-13, 12:32, said:

Fortunately, it is irrelevant whether 2♦-4 would be better or worse than average plus. There is no clause to award an "average plus" when possibilities are too numerous.

There is a clause that allows for an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1d) if the possibilities are too numerous. So, if the table result leads to, say, a score of 80%, and we expect that without the infraction the score would have been even better -but we can't assign a bridge result since the possibilities are too numerous- then we are allowed to give an AS of e.g. 90%.

Unfortunately, lots of directors are unaware of this and they are awarding average pluses left and right when they should award 90-10's or 50-50's.

Rik

I think those directors are using the EBU White Book about artificial adjusted scores, where it states:
Such a score is average plus (AVE+) if the side is not at fault, average (AVE) if the side is partly at fault and average minus (AVE-) if the side is fully at fault. This usually translates into 60% or +3 IMPs for AVE+, 50 % or 0 IMPs for AVE, 40% or -3 IMPs for AVE- (see §4.1.2 for other forms of scoring).

So, directors are indeed unaware that they can award an artificial adjusted score of 90-10. I think we need someone such as RMB1 to advise us whether you are right and the White Book is wrong.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-February-13, 17:49, said:

I think those directors are using the EBU White Book about artificial adjusted scores, where it states:
Such a score is average plus (AVE+) if the side is not at fault, average (AVE) if the side is partly at fault and average minus (AVE-) if the side is fully at fault. This usually translates into 60% or +3 IMPs for AVE+, 50 % or 0 IMPs for AVE, 40% or -3 IMPs for AVE- (see §4.1.2 for other forms of scoring).

So, directors are indeed unaware that they can award an artificial adjusted score of 90-10. I think we need someone such as RMB1 to advise us whether you are right and the White Book is wrong.

Perhaps the White Book should also reflect that the director might award more than 60% for average plus, or less than 40% for average minus. It might even provide some guidance as to under what circumstances that might be done.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-February-13, 17:49, said:

I think those directors are using the EBU White Book about artificial adjusted scores, where it states:
Such a score is average plus (AVE+) if the side is not at fault, average (AVE) if the side is partly at fault and average minus (AVE-) if the side is fully at fault. This usually translates into 60% or +3 IMPs for AVE+, 50 % or 0 IMPs for AVE, 40% or -3 IMPs for AVE- (see §4.1.2 for other forms of scoring).

So, directors are indeed unaware that they can award an artificial adjusted score of 90-10. I think we need someone such as RMB1 to advise us whether you are right and the White Book is wrong.

The White book is correct... and so am I.

You, and many other TDs, are confusing Law 12C1d and Law 12C2.

Law 12C1d deals with what to do when it is too complicated to determine an adjusted score (as a bridge result). There is a result at the table (e.g. 2♦-4), but there was an infraction and without it the result would have been different. Unfortunately, it is hard to say precisely what the result would be. So, we can immediately give the score in MPs / IMPs that seems right.

Law 12C2 tells what to do when no result could be obtained at the table. This could, e.g., be because one pair has played the board before when they shouldn't have. Then that pair could be at fault, and they will get Ave-, whereas their opponents are not at fault and will get Ave+.

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-14, 01:07, said:

The White book is correct... and so am I.

You, and many other TDs, are confusing Law 12C1d and Law 12C2.

Law 12C1d deals with what to do when it is too complicated to determine an adjusted score (as a bridge result). There is a result at the table (e.g. 2♦-4), but there was an infraction and without it the result would have been different. Unfortunately, it is hard to say precisely what the result would be. So, we can immediately give the score in MPs / IMPs that seems right.

Law 12C2 tells what to do when no result could be obtained at the table. This could, e.g., be because one pair has played the board before when they shouldn't have. Then that pair could be at fault, and they will get Ave-, whereas their opponents are not at fault and will get Ave+.

12C2 begins "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)]". Doesn't that mean that this applies both when the board is unplayable and when an adjustment is made under 12C1d?

12C2 also says that average plus and minus scores are "at most 40%" and "at least 60%" and "normally plus or minus 3 imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows". Law 86A tells us that at "When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer." In other words, at matchpoints you can award whatever artificial score seems appropriate, but at IMPs you can't. What on earth were they thinking when they wrote this?

12C2 also prevents our awarding a score like 90-10 in practice, because 12C2c says that you can't give a pair more than their average for the session, if that's above 60%.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2014-February-14, 02:46, said:

12C2 begins "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)]". Doesn't that mean that this applies both when the board is unplayable and when an adjustment is made under 12C1d?

That would have been my reading of it.

gnasher, on 2014-February-14, 02:46, said:

12C2 also says that average plus and minus scores are "at most 40%" and "at least 60%" and "normally plus or minus 3 imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows". Law 86A tells us that at "When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer." In other words, at matchpoints you can award whatever artificial score seems appropriate, but at IMPs you can't. What on earth were they thinking when they wrote this?

I think the "at most" and "at least" phrases are there to allow for what we are told to do when their session score is above 60% or below 40%. The flexibility offered with regard to IMP scores is often used for IMP-pairs where +-2 IMPs are commonly used (and this is usually increased for pairs whose session average is greater than 2IMP/board).

There's also a further possiblity offered by L86D.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-February-14, 02:46, said:

12C2 begins "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)]". Doesn't that mean that this applies both when the board is unplayable and when an adjustment is made under 12C1d?

No.

Think of this particular case: A result was obtained (2♥-1). The reference in 12C2 to Law C1(d) is there for those (rare) cases that 12C1d applies (a result was obtained) and it is absolutely, completely impossible to say what the MP/IMP score would be without the infraction.

In this case, one could say that it is impossible to determine one accurate bridge score (2♦-4, 3♦-5, 4♦X-6, something else, varying from +100 NS to -1400 NS), but it is most likely not difficult at all to assign an accurate score in MPs: No matter what the bridge score would be NS would get a (near) bottom on the board (varying between 0 en 10% NS).

12C1d is there to prevent the need for arbitrary constructions of weighted scores. We could argue for days about the exact weighting of the set of possible results [2♦-4, 3♦-5, 4♦X-6, something else]. Law 12C1d gives us the power to say, e.g.:
90% will lead to NS going down in too high a diamond contract for a bottom for NS.
10% will lead to 'something else' -we don't know what, and then average would be the best guess.
90%x0% + 10%x50% = 5% for NS and 95% for EW."

This is entirely different from a situation where NS commit an infraction, get a complete top because of that, and we don't have a clue what would have happened without the infraction, neither in bridge score, nor in MP score. In that case, you give the offenders Ave- and the non-offender Ave+.

(Say, South opens 2♦ (weak, but explained as Benji Acol). As a result NS make a diamond partscore for +110, but EW can make game in hearts, spades and NT or slam in hearts (but not in spades) and NS can sacrifice in diamonds. All of these results -varying from +100 to -1430 in bridge scores for NS and in MPs from 5 to 95% for NS- would be possible outcomes.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

No. If Rik can say that, so can I.

The purpose of 12C1{d} is to allow the TD to award an artificial adjusted score when awarding the normally required (because a result was obtained at the table) assigned adjusted score is too difficult because "the possibilities are too numerous or not obvious". How do we award an artificial adjusted score? We look to Law 12C2. Now the first time I read that law, I interpreted "at most 40%" and "at least 60%" as giving the director discretion to vary from "60/40" if in his judgment that is appropriate. After a lot of back and forth with various people I reluctantly accepted the alternate interpretation that the "discretion" doesn't exist unless the pertinent pair was already having a game greater than 60% or less than 40% - but I've never really believed that's what the law says, and I still don't. In fact these discussions about Law 12C1{d} have simply confirmed, in my mind, my original interpretation, because it is in 12C1{d} cases that the discretion is most likely to be apply, and there is nothing in the law itself that suggests that the TD does not have that discretion under Law 12C2.

There is another interesting aspect of Law 12C2: if both pairs are having, say, a 65% game, you cannot give the OS less than 40%, except in the ACBL, where the NOS will get their alloted 65%, and the NOS will get 35%. IOW, the ACBL has mandated that the scores must balance. That means that, in the ACBL, if you wish to give the NOS 90%, you must give the OS 10%. You have no choice. If you don't think this is reasonable for the OS, you'll give a different adjustment. In the rest of the world, of course, directors don't have this problem.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-14, 10:56, said:

There is another interesting aspect of Law 12C2: if both pairs are having, say, a 65% game, you cannot give the OS less than 40%, except in the ACBL, where the NOS will get their alloted 65%, and the NOS will get 35%. IOW, the ACBL has mandated that the scores must balance. That means that, in the ACBL, if you wish to give the NOS 90%, you must give the OS 10%. You have no choice. If you don't think this is reasonable for the OS, you'll give a different adjustment. In the rest of the world, of course, directors don't have this problem.

How do the ACBL score, say, A/A+?

[blackshoe]

Heh. The restriction (that the scores must balance) applies only to A+/A-. Other than that, I would expect we would give 50%/60% (or more than 60% if that's appropriate. IAC, the computer handles it, so i doubt most directors have a clue, or that they even think about it.

I have to admit I was tempted to say "they don't".

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-14, 10:56, said:

No. If Rik can say that, so can I.

The purpose of 12C1{d} is to allow the TD to award an artificial adjusted score when awarding the normally required (because a result was obtained at the table) assigned adjusted score is too difficult because "the possibilities are too numerous or not obvious". How do we award an artificial adjusted score? We look to Law 12C2. Now the first time I read that law, I interpreted "at most 40%" and "at least 60%" as giving the director discretion to vary from "60/40" if in his judgment that is appropriate. After a lot of back and forth with various people I reluctantly accepted the alternate interpretation that the "discretion" doesn't exist unless the pertinent pair was already having a game greater than 60% or less than 40% - but I've never really believed that's what the law says, and I still don't. In fact these discussions about Law 12C1{d} have simply confirmed, in my mind, my original interpretation, because it is in 12C1{d} cases that the discretion is most likely to be apply, and there is nothing in the law itself that suggests that the TD does not have that discretion under Law 12C2.

I have spent some time parsing L12C2 and am quite fascinated. In part [for example] C2a provides that an art score for the NOS may be [since it must be at least 60%] ANY thing greater than 60% except [C2c] when his session score is more than 60% [in which case his score is EXACTLY his session percentage]. To put a fine point on it, the art score can be 200% or 236% or…. So long as the session score of the other boards is not greater than 60%.

I thus see no valid reason to believe the argument that convinced you otherwise.

[sailoranch]

I don't get it. Is there any situation where the possible results are too numerous or not obvious enough to award an assigned score, but obvious enough and not too numerous to conclude that the NOS would matchpoint exactly 90%?

Just pick a result or weight several of them and give an assigned adjusted score, which is essentially what's happening in your mind anyway.