[vigfus]

All players are experts.
1♣ is strong. North meant 2NT as any 7 card suit with two honours of the top 3. South gave alert on North's bid, and explained lenght and strength the same way, but the suit is CLUBS.
East talked to me about this board and felt N/S had used unauthorised information.
I talked to two experts and asked then what they would bid on Norths cards when partner bids 5♣. One raised to 6♣, the other felt he could not raise to 6♣. Neither of them thought about bidding 5♠ to play.

I ruled split score.
N/S = 5♣ -500 (Law 16.B)
E/W = 5♠ -650 (Law 12.C.1.b)

N/S appealed. The Appeal committie confirmed my ruling.

East started the defence with AK of clubs. At trick 3, he lead diamond king, and West did not get his ruff. 11 tricks

---

[mamos]

 vigfus, on 2011-October-02, 05:07, said:

All players are experts.
1♣ is strong. North meant 2NT as any 7 card suit with two honours of the top 3. South gave alert on North's bid, and explained lenght and strength the same way, but the suit is CLUBS.
East talked to me about this board and felt N/S had used unauthorised information.
I talked to two experts and asked then what they would bid on Norths cards when partner bids 5♣. One raised to 6♣, the other felt he could not raise to 6♣. Neither of them thought about bidding 5♠ to play.

I ruled split score.
N/S = 5♣ -500 (Law 16.B)
E/W = 5♠ -650 (Law 12.C.1.b)

N/S appealed. The Appeal committie confirmed my ruling.

East started the defence with AK of clubs. At trick 3, he lead diamond king, and West did not get his ruff. 11 tricks

---

I do not agree with this ruling. If 5 Spades is ruled illegal because of UI then it cannot become part of weighted scores in this fashion. You cannot use UI some of the time. If Pass of 5 Clubs is a logical Alternative then the TD should rule that the board be scored as 5 Clubs whatever 100% of the time

This will teach me not to read the question

Mike Amos

[ahydra]

I don't think he awarded a weighted score, more a split score. NS get 100% of 5C going 5 off. EW get 100% of 5S making.

Am wondering why the ruling for NS isn't 7C-7 though (South has a clear raise to 7C assuming 2NT did show clubs, since 5S would then be a grand slam try). You could even award 7SX-3. On the other hand, what are the rules on South realising "erm, whoops, 2NT is any suit, so he actually has spades" when the 5S bid occurs? Surely he's allowed to realise he made a mistake earlier, and as long as he informs the opponents & calls the Director, he can't be penalised except for misinformation?

Agree with the EW score though - even beginners would get that ruff in when the QJ drops under the AK!

ahydra

[Trinidad]

This is not the way to assign a split score. EW get to keep the part of the score that they caused themselves. If EW would have "kept playing bridge" (assuming that you rule that not giving West a ruff is a SEWoG) they would have obtained a score of +100. That means that EW get: the IMP score that NS get - the damage they caused themselves, i.e. the difference in the IMP scores for +100 and -650.

I don't understand why you are so kind on NS to give them an AS based on 5♣. If you polled two experts and one says that he will pass 5♣ and the other says that he will raise to 6♣, you should weight the AS: 50% based on 5♣ and 50% based on North bidding 6♣. 6♣ will be doubled with neither North nor South having any reason to run anywhere. Therefore, the AS for NS should be: 50% 5♣-5 (-500) and 50% 6♣X-6 (-1700). And then I am still kind to NS, since I could easily argue that South would redouble 6♣ half the time, leading to -3400.

And as I explained above, EW should get the same result with their own damage subtracted from that.

Rik

[AlexJonson]

Were your players polled having some fun - they really believed 2NT showed 7 clubs to top honours, or you insisted? Just curious.

[aguahombre]

I don't understand E/W defending 5S accurately or badly being considered at all in the ruling. If they had defended correctly would they still have to settle for +100? Aren't they entitled to the benefit of the opponents' screwups? Or was this matchpoints and we are concerned with the rest of the E/W field and feel the rest of the N/S field is irrelevant.

I could understand a PP for stupidity against East, if there were such a thing. But I don't comprehend deciding they should be defending 5S at all.

[vigfus]

 aguahombre, on 2011-October-02, 14:07, said:

I don't understand E/W defending 5S accurately or badly being considered at all in the ruling. If they had defended correctly would they still have to settle for +100? Aren't they entitled to the benefit of the opponents' screwups? Or was this matchpoints and we are concerned with the rest of the E/W field and feel the rest of the N/S field is irrelevant.

I could understand a PP for stupidity against East, if there were such a thing. But I don't comprehend deciding they should be defending 5S at all.

If E/W had defeted 5♠, then of course the score would have been 500. The same score to both sides

[bluejak]

Not really adding anything, but just clarifying, for my sake at least.

You polled two people: one passed 5♣, one bid 6♣. So if you were to rule a single score, why is it not 6♣? Ok, let's go with a weighted score, but of course East might double 6♣ - I am not that certain I would, Christmas only comes once a year, and it is not December: I can imagine doubling, the opponents who really must be having a misunderstanding, running to something else, and can I beat that?

While I agree no-one removes 5♣ to 5♠ with the North hand [legally], might they not remove 6♣ to 6♠ if 6♣ is doubled?

So for N/S how about:

.. 40% of 5♣ -5, NS -500
+ 10% of 6♠x -2, NS -500
+ 20% of 6♣ -6, NS -600
+ 30% of 6♣x -6, NS -1700

or something like that.

As for E/W, you seem to have decided that the defence was bad enough to be SEWoG. I should like to know why they defended as they did, but I agree it is reasonable to say that that defence is a serious error. So now we decide how much the difference is in imps or MPs between 5♠ making and 5♠ -1 and E/W get the reverse of the N/S adjusted score less that difference.

 aguahombre, on 2011-October-02, 14:07, said:

I don't understand E/W defending 5S accurately or badly being considered at all in the ruling. If they had defended correctly would they still have to settle for +100? Aren't they entitled to the benefit of the opponents' screwups? Or was this matchpoints and we are concerned with the rest of the E/W field and feel the rest of the N/S field is irrelevant.

Law 12B1B says [paraphrased] that if the non-offenders commit a serious error that is not relevant to the ruling then their adjusted score is reduced by the amount the serious error cost them. So Vigfus has made an adjustment for that, though it should be done as above.

The rest of the room is irrelevant to rulings. Nothing in the Laws allows for any alteration to any ruling based on the rest of the field. "Protecting the field" is merely a term invented by certain American experts who are not as ethical as the rest to justify some of their dubious practices and has no legal basis whatever.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 17:15, said:

While I agree no-one removes 5♣ to 5♠ with the North hand [legally], might they not remove 6♣ to 6♠ if 6♣ is doubled?

Why would North remove 6♣X to 6♠? He (supposedly) just bid 6♣ himself after his partner said that he wasn't interested in his semisolid spade suit. On top of that, his spade suit is less solid than it is supposed to be (one top honor instead of the two that it promised).
And South can't remove to 6♠. He doesn't even know that North has spades. If he hears North bid 6♣, followed by a double, he might wel redouble. In that case it is Christmas.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 17:15, said:

Law 12B1B says [paraphrased] that if the non-offenders commit a serious error that is not relevant to the ruling then their adjusted score is reduced by the amount the serious error cost them. So Vigfus has made an adjustment for that, though it should be done as above.

O.K., that clears that part up. So, if they had defended correctly would the +100 go away and they just get the inverse of the N/S adjusted score?

[bluejak]

Sure, or even if they had defended poorly. It has to be pretty dreadful to be considered a serious error.

[ICEmachine]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 17:15, said:

As for E/W, you seem to have decided that the defence was bad enough to be SEWoG. I should like to know why they defended as they did, but I agree it is reasonable to say that that defence is a serious error. So now we decide how much the difference is in imps or MPs between 5♠ making and 5♠ -1 and E/W get the reverse of the N/S adjusted score less that difference.

Im just a little bit curious of how you would score this adjustment in the tourney? If its imps across the field for example? What score would the other tables compare to?

[RMB1]

 ICEmachine, on 2011-October-05, 01:22, said:

Im just a little bit curious of how you would score this adjustment in the tourney? If its imps across the field for example? What score would the other tables compare to?

This is a good question, which is not addressed in Law 12C1b (even for simple matchpoints).

As a practical matter, I would compare the other tables with the adjusted score awarded to the offending side. This is what happens if you enter the adjusted score as "the" score for the table and do the non-offending side's score as a (manual) adjustment.

If the non-offenders score is calculated as
(table score) + (adjusted score) - (what they could have score withouth the error)
then you could calculate the score for pairs comparing with the non-offending side by calculating their score when the non-offending get each of those three scores and applying the same formula.

[ICEmachine]

 RMB1, on 2011-October-05, 03:23, said:

This is a good question, which is not addressed in Law 12C1b (even for simple matchpoints).

As a practical matter, I would compare the other tables with the adjusted score awarded to the offending side. This is what happens if you enter the adjusted score as "the" score for the table and do the non-offending side's score as a (manual) adjustment.

If the non-offenders score is calculated as
(table score) + (adjusted score) - (what they could have score withouth the error)
then you could calculate the score for pairs comparing with the non-offending side by calculating their score when the non-offending get each of those three scores and applying the same formula.

ok, thanks


I figured it would be this way, but I was a bit curious if anyone had a different opinion

[bluejak]

It seems to me that the adjustment is the score under Law 12C1C or 12C1E, and Law 12C1B provides a separate reduction in score for the non-offenders. Doing it manually seems to me to fit in with the legalities.

[jallerton]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 17:15, said:

Not really adding anything, but just clarifying, for my sake at least.

You polled two people: one passed 5♣, one bid 6♣. So if you were to rule a single score, why is it not 6♣? Ok, let's go with a weighted score, but of course East might double 6♣ - I am not that certain I would, Christmas only comes once a year, and it is not December: I can imagine doubling, the opponents who really must be having a misunderstanding, running to something else, and can I beat that?

While I agree no-one removes 5♣ to 5♠ with the North hand [legally], might they not remove 6♣ to 6♠ if 6♣ is doubled?

So for N/S how about:

.. 40% of 5♣ -5, NS -500
+ 10% of 6♠x -2, NS -500
+ 20% of 6♣ -6, NS -600
+ 30% of 6♣x -6, NS -1700

I agree that the single score of 6♣-6 is a possible ruling, but please can you explain why the weighted score you suggest above is legal?

You are working on the assumption that Pass and 6♣ are both logical alternatives, so let's stick with that assumption. Surely the UI demonstrably suggests Pass over 6♣ as the latter can be expected to accumulate an extra undertrick and is more likely to be doubled. Hence if 6♣ is a logical alternative, Pass of 5♣ is illegal and no percentage of 5♣ should be included in the weighting. [If 6♣ is not a logical alternative, the weighting should not include any percentage of 6♣ or 6♣x contracts, as it is hard to see how this contract could subsequently be reached.]

Also, if North does raise to 6♣ and East doubles, why do you assign a 10% weighting to North pulling to 6♠ whilst retaining a 30% weighting to 6♣x? This seems Reveleyesque to me, as North still has the same UI on this round of bidding.

(I have the same concern about Trinidad's suggested ruling.)

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-October-12, 15:53, said:

I agree that the single score of 6♣-6 is a possible ruling

As do I, in that it needs to be considered, but I do not think raising to 6♣ is a logical alternative. North has shown a seven-card suit with two honours and he does not have two of the top three as promised, and they do not include the ace. True, North has a ruffing value, but South did not consult him when bidding Five Clubs. South might have something like none KQ KQ AKQJxxxxx for example. He suspects North has spades (from North's point of view) and will not welcome North raising. So, I would go for 100% of 5♣X - 5 for N/S, as I agree that if 6♣ is an LA then Pass is illegal.

E/W keep the part of the score for the SeWoG unrelated to the infraction. But, as bluejak states, only that part caused by the SeWoG, which is the difference between +100 and -650. They still get the difference between +100 and +1400 which they "lost" because of N/S's illegal use of UI.

So I think it is N/S -1400 E/W +550 (1300-750)

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2011-October-12, 15:53, said:

I agree that the single score of 6♣-6 is a possible ruling, but please can you explain why the weighted score you suggest above is legal?

You are working on the assumption that Pass and 6♣ are both logical alternatives, so let's stick with that assumption. Surely the UI demonstrably suggests Pass over 6♣ as the latter can be expected to accumulate an extra undertrick and is more likely to be doubled. Hence if 6♣ is a logical alternative, Pass of 5♣ is illegal and no percentage of 5♣ should be included in the weighting. [If 6♣ is not a logical alternative, the weighting should not include any percentage of 6♣ or 6♣x contracts, as it is hard to see how this contract could subsequently be reached.]

Also, if North does raise to 6♣ and East doubles, why do you assign a 10% weighting to North pulling to 6♠ whilst retaining a 30% weighting to 6♣x? This seems Reveleyesque to me, as North still has the same UI on this round of bidding.

(I have the same concern about Trinidad's suggested ruling.)

Putting it simply, you and I disagree about the bridge judgement - disagree considerably, I think. Given your premises, your conclusions are no doubt valid, but I do not agree with your premises.

[Trinidad]

 jallerton, on 2011-October-12, 15:53, said:

I agree that the single score of 6♣-6 is a possible ruling, but please can you explain why the weighted score you suggest above is legal?

You are working on the assumption that Pass and 6♣ are both logical alternatives, so let's stick with that assumption. Surely the UI demonstrably suggests Pass over 6♣ as the latter can be expected to accumulate an extra undertrick and is more likely to be doubled. Hence if 6♣ is a logical alternative, Pass of 5♣ is illegal and no percentage of 5♣ should be included in the weighting. [If 6♣ is not a logical alternative, the weighting should not include any percentage of 6♣ or 6♣x contracts, as it is hard to see how this contract could subsequently be reached.]

Also, if North does raise to 6♣ and East doubles, why do you assign a 10% weighting to North pulling to 6♠ whilst retaining a 30% weighting to 6♣x? This seems Reveleyesque to me, as North still has the same UI on this round of bidding.

(I have the same concern about Trinidad's suggested ruling.)

I agree and I was wrong in my earlier post.
If you state that pass and 6♣ (and possibly 5♠) are LA's, then 6♣ should be chosen. And if 6♣ is not an LA then it doesn't belong in a weighted AS.
The 'poll' indicated that 6♣ was an LA. Therefore the question that remain are whether 6♣ will be doubled or not and what would happen after that. I am sure that it will be doubled. Neither North nor South has any reason to run: South thinks that North promised clubs with his 2NT bid (where would South run to?) and North is supposed to think that South has a long single suiter in clubs and was not interested in his spade suit. South should be contemplating a redouble, but he will conclude that it is likely that East has ♣KJx in which case NS bid to a good slam where East knows that it will fail on the bad trump break.

Therefore, the AS should be 100% 6♣X -6.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 19:16, said:

Putting it simply, you and I disagree about the bridge judgement - disagree considerably, I think. Given your premises, your conclusions are no doubt valid, but I do not agree with your premises.

To clarify, maybe you could specify what -in your view- Jallerton's premises was and in what way you don't agree with it.

Rik