[Cyberyeti]

---

OK, the table result was 5♦x-1 EW +100 which was a poor board for NS as there were a lot of 4♦=.

If you decide 3♥ was not allowed and pass was a LA, so 3♥ becomes pass, what the hell happens now ?

Possibilities

P-X-4♦-P-P-P
P-X-4♦-4♥-P-P-P
P-X-4♦-P-P-X-P-4♥-P-P-P
P-X-4♦-P-P-X-P-P-P
P-X-P-3♥-P-P-P
P-X-P-3♥-4♦-P-P-P
P-X-P-3♥-4♦-4♥-P-P-P
P-X-P-4♥-P-P-P
P-3♥-P-4♥
4♦-P-P-P
4♦-X-P-4H-P-P-P
4♦-X-P-P-P
4♦-4♥-P-P-P

and there may be others, the playing director was called, had not yet played the board at the time, and when asked for a ruling found the offending pair had skedaddled so could not be asked further what their doubles would mean.

4♥ in practice will make by W, but may not make by E, particularly if N has got a diamond raise in.

Any suggestions ?

[pran]

Oh dear,
First of all since nothing is said about STOP:
Did West produce a STOP with his skip bid and did North wait the prescribed 10 seconds?

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2012-December-09, 16:15, said:

Oh dear,
First of all since nothing is said about STOP:
Did West produce a STOP with his skip bid and did North wait the prescribed 10 seconds?

Yes that was all fine, the BIT was 30+ seconds.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-09, 16:45, said:

Yes that was all fine, the BIT was 30+ seconds.

Well then,
East is far too strong to throw in the towel. I prefer a double to show both majors but he can also bid 3♥ to show 5 cards. The problem is that a spade fit will disappear unless West (with 4 spades) bids 3♠ over the 3♥ bid. Worst case scenario as seen by East is to land in a ♣ contract if West has no fit in either major.

Anyway, I shall land in 4♥, and with West as declarer when East doubles over 3♦.

[blackshoe]

The fact that a lot of folks at other tables were in 4♦ making is not relevant. The question is what might have happened at this table.

EW +620 is certainly better for them than EW +100, but it's NS that's the NOS here, no? The TD might have to apply 12C1(d), or let the result stand (if EW would have got to 4♥, then the table result means there was no damage).

[Cyberyeti]

And if X from E is penalties ? as it is for many bad players beyond 2♠ or if the IJO is treated as a preempt so a double opposite is pens ?

[nigel_k]

I assume from the auction given that E/W are not particularly strong. In that case, N/S being allowed to play 4♦ is very possible. I would suggest 60% 4♦ making and 40% 5♦X-1. Maybe you could include some probability of 4♥ making or -1 but I doubt N/S would let E/W play there very often.

[Cyberyeti]

nigel_k, on 2012-December-10, 02:45, said:

I assume from the auction given that E/W are not particularly strong. In that case, N/S being allowed to play 4♦ is very possible. I would suggest 60% 4♦ making and 40% 5♦X-1. Maybe you could include some probability of 4♥ making or -1 but I doubt N/S would let E/W play there very often.

The event was the county final of an event qualified for in clubs. In some of the clubs, my cat could probably qualify if I had one, so there were a small handful of pairs who could follow suit, and a lot who struggled with that. We scored nearly 59% in a 2 session pairs which was good enough for 3rd, the top 3 pairs being the 6/8 of our county first team that were in the event.

The director took a simple, practical and fair, but utterly illegal course.
Did we deserve an adjustment - yes
Was it going to make any difference - yes (a couple of matchpoints would move us from 4th->3rd, we weren't going to get 2nd with any reasonable adjustment, irrelevant to our oppo)
Is there an adjustment that's vaguely sensible and easy to put into the computer that accomplishes this - yes, 100% of 4♥-1 which probably generates a vaguely similar number of MPs to the "correct" split score
OK let's do that

I was just interested to see how you wade through a problem where there are so many things that could happen next after the bid was cancelled.

[mjj29]

It looks to me like 4H= or 5D for the same result are the likely results after a pass from west, rather than 3H, so I wouldn't adjust.

When there are many things that could happen then of course you weight (which should also be easy if you have a decent scoring program) all of them, but here I don't think the weighting will be better than table result.

[Cyberyeti]

mjj29, on 2012-December-10, 06:56, said:

It looks to me like 4H= or 5D for the same result are the likely results after a pass from west, rather than 3H, so I wouldn't adjust.

This might well be true if you were 100% sure X was T/O from E (or if EW were a better pair), if it was penalties (which it might well be for this pair), 4♦=, 4♦X= and 4♥-1 are also in the frame as well as more bizarre things like 3♦X+1.

[mjj29]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-10, 07:05, said:

This might well be true if you were 100% sure X was T/O from E (or if EW were a better pair), if it was penalties (which it might well be for this pair), 4♦=, 4♦X= and 4♥-1 are also in the frame as well as more bizarre things like 3♦X+1.

If X is penalties than E won't X, he'll bid 3♥, which will be raised to 4 again. Maybe I haven't spent enough time analysing the hand, but how does 4♥ go off?

[Cyberyeti]

mjj29, on 2012-December-11, 03:21, said:

If X is penalties than E won't X, he'll bid 3♥, which will be raised to 4 again. Maybe I haven't spent enough time analysing the hand, but how does 4♥ go off?

Singleton spade lead, S flies the heart and underleads the diamonds.

This is certainly plausible if the auction goes 3♦-P-4♦-4♥

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-10, 03:33, said:

The director took a simple, practical and fair, but utterly illegal course.
Did we deserve an adjustment - yes
Was it going to make any difference - yes (a couple of matchpoints would move us from 4th->3rd, we weren't going to get 2nd with any reasonable adjustment, irrelevant to our oppo)
Is there an adjustment that's vaguely sensible and easy to put into the computer that accomplishes this - yes, 100% of 4♥-1 which probably generates a vaguely similar number of MPs to the "correct" split score
OK let's do that

I must be misunderstanding you. The director adjusted with the intent of altering your position in the standings, and you consider this simple, practical, and fair?

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2012-December-11, 09:18, said:

I must be misunderstanding you. The director adjusted with the intent of altering your position in the standings, and you consider this simple, practical, and fair?

It was fair, in that it achieved functionally the same result the 30% of this plus 25% of that plus... he would have adjusted to, but did so without giving the scorer a coronary.

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-11, 09:26, said:

It was fair, in that it achieved functionally the same result the 30% of this plus 25% of that plus... he would have adjusted to, but did so without giving the scorer a coronary.

Ah ok, got it. He just took a shortcut to the proper final result. Makes sense.

[blackshoe]

Fair: in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

An illegal ruling is not "fair" whatever the TD's reason for giving it. As for the scorer, if he can't handle weighted scores, get better scoring software, train the scorer, or fire him and get somebody who can handle them.

[campboy]

What actually was the rest of the auction? Presumably it involved N/S bidding 5♦ over 4♥, so it might give us some help in deciding how likely they are to do the same thing on a different auction.

[Lanor Fow]

This seems horrific. Instead of coming up with a result, simplified or complex, that seems to be correct, the directory has looked at the final scores and come up with an arbitary result designed to change these?

The director can't even have been certain that the 30% of this and 20% of that would have changed anything, given he didn't even calculate it. At least one person on this thread would have given no adjustment due to no damage, which would have not have been the same final standings.

In a small club I could understand either not having a scorer who knows how to, or a programme that allows, wieghted scores, but in a county final this seems unacceptable.

[Cyberyeti]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-December-18, 07:09, said:

This seems horrific. Instead of coming up with a result, simplified or complex, that seems to be correct, the directory has looked at the final scores and come up with an arbitary result designed to change these?

The director can't even have been certain that the 30% of this and 20% of that would have changed anything, given he didn't even calculate it. At least one person on this thread would have given no adjustment due to no damage, which would have not have been the same final standings.

In a small club I could understand either not having a scorer who knows how to, or a programme that allows, wieghted scores, but in a county final this seems unacceptable.

The director decided he was going to give an adjustment more favourable than 5♦-1 and less favourable than 4♦=. He worked out that which adjustment he gave in that range didn't make any difference so effectively picked one to get the results out pretty much instantly rather than agonizing to get the right one.

I would add that we're a small county, director and scorer were playing, and the one guy who knows the scoring program inside out was away on holiday, so it's entirely possible nobody knew how to put a weighted/split score into the computer.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-18, 11:55, said:

The director decided he was going to give an adjustment more favourable than 5♦-1 and less favourable than 4♦=.

Why?