[c_corgi]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 17:18, said:

...
IMO the irregularity could be argued to have been committed at the point of the hesitation which W would have known was useful to his side, rather than at the point of the ruff so it was after the infraction.

If the ruling is based on that irregularity, the resulting disciplinary kerfuffle is likely to be sufficient to push the weighting of an adjusted score towards the end of a very long agenda.

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 17:18, said:

I was using it in the context of a possible weighted score not as a LA.

But in the EBU we would not weight the results of ruffing high and ruffing low.

If we are adjusting then ruffing low would be a logical alternative and ruffing high would be suggested, in which case ruffing high is not allowed and the adjustment would be 100% result of ruffing low. To weight the outcomes here would be a 'Reveley' ruling.

[billw55]

RMB1, on 2013-July-17, 01:01, said:

But in the EBU we would not weight the results of ruffing high and ruffing low.

If we are adjusting then ruffing low would be a logical alternative and ruffing high would be suggested, in which case ruffing high is not allowed and the adjustment would be 100% result of ruffing low. To weight the outcomes here would be a 'Reveley' ruling.

Why not also a percentage of discarding? Is it really that much worse than ruffing low?

[RMB1]

billw55, on 2013-July-17, 13:29, said:

Why not also a percentage of discarding? Is it really that much worse than ruffing low?

If discarding is a logical alternative; and
discarding is not demonstrably suggested over ruffing low; and
ruffing low is not demonstrably suggested over discarding; then
the [Law 12C1 (c)] ruling should be weighted between the results of ruffing low and discarding.

[aguahombre]

There would be times (looking at other dummies) where pard's hesitation could have some other purpose than to wake me up. Here, with this one, there couldn't.

I played opposite a very strong player (technically, not ethically) in just one event. About the third time he insulted my intelligence with his gyrations, I nullo'd the defense in a situation similar to this one. When he started to post mortem at the end of play, I strongly suggested he cease and desist before I brought in the Mounties. The opponents knew what had happened and smiled.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2013-July-17, 13:29, said:

Why not also a percentage of discarding? Is it really that much worse than ruffing low?

I think we might judge discarding to be the same result as ruffing high if we were awake when doing the judging.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-17, 20:00, said:

There would be times (looking at other dummies) where pard's hesitation could have some other purpose than to wake me up. Here, with this one, there couldn't.

Perhaps partner was trying to estimate the probabilities of different heart layouts? From his point of view, if declarer has AJ10xxx a spade is necessary; if he has AQ10xx a spade will cost the contract (assuming that left to his own devices declarer would play with the odds).

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-17, 21:16, said:

I think we might judge discarding to be the same result as ruffing high if we were awake when doing the judging.

True, but in this proposed ruling, ruffing high is disallowed based on the UI, while discarding is not. So 100% of 4♥=, which is based on ruffing low being the only remaining LA, isn't really right? That is, if we consider discarding an LA.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-July-18, 01:44, said:

Perhaps partner was trying to estimate the probabilities of different heart layouts? From his point of view, if declarer has AJ10xxx a spade is necessary; if he has AQ10xx a spade will cost the contract (assuming that left to his own devices declarer would play with the odds).

Yeh, you are right. But I would expect to be ruled against, and would not be happy with partner anyway.