[kb49]

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club. Could you comment on the infractions that occurred and the ruling that was made.

NS Game Dealer S

South opened 2H (not announced or alerted). West asked North to clarify the bid. North said it was strong. North then bid 3D. East holding eight clubs headed by the AKC and also the ace of spades passed. South bid 3H. North bid 4H. Before West led a card South said that her partner had given the wrong information. The Director was called. West was given the opportunity to reopen the bidding but she refused. The contract was made. The Director adjusted the score to North making 3H+1. When somebody suggested that he looked at the final results on the traveller before making an adjusted score he said that was not allowed.

1. Was that the correct ruling ?

2. Was East damaged? With the correct information she could have bid 5C going down 2 which would have been a good score.

3. The EBU uses something called a 'Weighted Score' that is used for adjusting scores. Should that have been used? Don't know how to do it?

4. Did South have unauthorised information ?

There were only four tables. The scores on the traveller were : 4C -2 (E) 4D -2 (N) 4H (S) 4H -1 (S)

[helene_t]

1: No. I can't immagine any reason to adjust to 3♥+1. North did not have any UI so why isn't he/she allowed to bid 4♥?

2: She could have bid 5♣ even with the wrong information. I don't see how it can make any difference.

3: Weighted scores are used if for example the TD thinks that with correct information E would have bid 5♣ which North may or may not have doubled, and it may have made 11 or 12 tricks. Then the TD could adjust some weighted average of the mathcpoints that would have been obtained for 5♣=, 5♣X=, 5♣+1 and 5♣X+1. But I don't see any reason to do anything like that.

4: Yes. Possibly, if this pair plays 3♦ as nonforcing opposite a weak two, it would be correct to adjust to 3♦ by North since the 3♥ bid could have been based of abuse of the UI.

We might need to see the hands but it sounds like the score should stand.

BTW the director is correct that he shouldn't look at the traveler.

[RMB1]

We would really need all the hands to know what to rule.

South has unauthorised information, that North thinks South has a "strong two". The information suggests passing 3D, so 3H appears legal.
There is no reason to adjust for unauthorised information, certainly not to 3H.

East might have bid if he had known South was weak, but North will probably keep bidding because he thinks South is strong.
Without the hands, it is difficult to know, but the final contract might be 4C(E), 4CX(E), 4H(S)C(E), 5CX(E), 5D(N).
There may be reason to adjust for misinformation, and it could be a weighted outcome of some of these contracts.

Scoring a weighted score at matchpoints is not easy to explain and it is best if the scoring software does it for you.
There is an explanation at http://www.ebu.co.uk...s/publications: Weighted Rulings
and more details in the White Book.

[nige1]

kb49, on 2014-November-07, 04:55, said:

English Bridge Union. This incident happened recently in our club. Could you comment on the infractions that occurred and the ruling that was made. NS Game Dealer S South opened 2H (not announced or alerted). West asked North to clarify the bid. North said it was strong. North then bid 3D. East holding eight clubs headed by the AKC and also the ace of spades passed. South bid 3H. North bid 4H. Before West led a card South said that her partner had given the wrong information. The Director was called. West was given the opportunity to reopen the bidding but she refused. The contract was made. The Director adjusted the score to North making 3H+1. When somebody suggested that he looked at the final results on the traveller before making an adjusted score he said that was not allowed.
1. Was that the correct ruling ?
2. Was East damaged? With the correct information she could have bid 5C going down 2 which would have been a good score.
3. The EBU uses something called a 'Weighted Score' that is used for adjusting scores. Should that have been used? Don't know how to do it?
4. Did South have unauthorised information ?
There were only four tables. The scores on the traveller were : 4C -2 (E) 4D -2 (N) 4H (S) 4H -1 (S)

IMO If the director has time and he feels that it might aid his judgement, then he should find out what happened at other tables.

• Probably not. On the given facts, 4♥= seems reasonable.
• Probably not.
• Heaven forfend
• Yes (N thought S had shown a strong 2).

[mycroft]

1) Probably not (I would like to know the auction the TD suggests gets to 3 only hearts). North has no UI and can do what he wishes. South does, and may be constrained; E/W have misinformation which may have produced an uncontested auction that would not have happened otherwise. East may have scuppered herself by not making the "obvious" 4 or 5 club call into a game-forcing auction (don't know the rest of the hand, but the vul is right!). This is not an easy ruling, even with all the information.
2) Potentially. I'm not going to give her 5♣ after 4♥; if she knows 2♥ is weak, then it's North that has the points to drive to game. Oh, she knows that North doesn't have that because he told her South's call was strong? Ah, well, there's the rub. However, I could very easily give her a 4♣ call after 3♦ - which might lead to 4♣X-1 or 2, or 5♣X-2 or 3 (North is not going to pass out what is a clear sacrifice of their voluntarily bid game).
3) If appropriate, then a weighted score is correct in the EBU. I'll leave the process of determining what the weights would be, given the TD rules that an adjusted score needs to be made, to those in the EBU with more experience; but leave it be that that's going to involve even *more* looking at the full hand...
4) yes - I explained that back up at 1.

Looking at the traveller - assuming you're in a club where everybody bids alike, then the traveller may make sense as a way to determine what people may do. But if 2 tables play strong 2s, or if 2 tables play multi-and-polish, or multi-and-sound weak 2M, or a strong club with 9-14 1-level openers, or potentially 5-card weak 2s in first seat (yes, I know, the vul is all wrong for that, but I play EHAA, I'm sure at least one other pair does), then the traveller is just reporting what others did with *totally different auctions* - that doesn't help. Also, likely exactly *zero* other tables will the auction ever go 2♥-p-3♦ - and North has no UI. Generally, looking at the traveller doesn't help, unless it's a case where you can be reasonably certain that the auction will be similar if not identical at all other tables.

[weejonnie]

kb49, on 2014-November-07, 04:55, said:

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club. Could you comment on the infractions that occurred and the ruling that was made.

NS Game Dealer S

South opened 2H (not announced or alerted). West asked North to clarify the bid. North said it was strong. North then bid 3D. East holding eight clubs headed by the AKC and also the ace of spades passed. South bid 3H. North bid 4H. Before West led a card South said that her partner had given the wrong information. The Director was called. West was given the opportunity to reopen the bidding but she refused. The contract was made. The Director adjusted the score to North making 3H+1. When somebody suggested that he looked at the final results on the traveller before making an adjusted score he said that was not allowed.

1. Was that the correct ruling ?

2. Was East damaged? With the correct information she could have bid 5C going down 2 which would have been a good score.

3. The EBU uses something called a 'Weighted Score' that is used for adjusting scores. Should that have been used? Don't know how to do it?

4. Did South have unauthorised information ?

There were only four tables. The scores on the traveller were : 4C -2 (E) 4D -2 (N) 4H (S) 4H -1 (S)

Quick note on weighted scores.

The director decides what contracts can be legally reached and what the probable outcomes were, giving a weighting to the NOS. The director then aggregates the match points won on each contract multiplied by the probability of getting those points. He should of course make that decision based on the conventions and characteristics of the players in question - not use the results on the travellers.

A very simple example will show the effect.

Suppose after misinformation EW play and make 3 Spades and without it North South would ALWAYS play in 4 Hearts. The Queen of trumps is outstanding (one of 5 trumps) and there are no indications as to where it is but a 2-way finesse is available. If NS guess the Queen correctly then they make +620, if they don't then they make -100. Suppose +620 would score 20 matchpoints and -100 would score 10.

Then the director could assess the score as follows:-

60% of 4 Hearts Making (+620) : matchpoints = 60% of 20 = 12
40% of 4 Hearts down 1 (-100) : matchpoints = 40% of 10 = 4

Total matchpoints = (12+4) = 16

The increased (60%) score of +620 reflects the weighting in favour of the NOS.

(Yes I know that if 3 Spades makes then 4 Spades doubled is one off and in real life the score (+50, +100, +200) would also be considered - this is a SIMPLE example)

Playing in England, I naturally regard this as being fairer to the OS as in the alternative (ACBL) world the NOS would get 20 and the OS the reciprocated score. (In fact if it was at all probable that 4 Hearts being doubled and making then that would be the score the OS would get)

Obviously these decisions are subjective, but feedback indicates that players appreciate the effort used to obtain the scores and the fact that something like equity is attained.

(You may note the word 'legally' reached - if the auction involved EW choosing a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested by UI then auctions with THAT BID at THAT TIME are not allowed - known as a 'Reveley' ruling)

[nige1]

weejonnie, on 2014-November-08, 17:12, said:

A very simple example will show the effect. Suppose after misinformation EW play and make 3 Spades and without it North South would ALWAYS play in 4 Hearts. The Queen of trumps is outstanding (one of 5 trumps) and there are no indications as to where it is but a 2-way finesse is available. If NS guess the Queen correctly then they make +620, if they don't then they make -100. Suppose +620 would score 20 matchpoints and -100 would score 10. Then the director could assess the score as follows:-
60% of 4 Hearts Making (+620) : matchpoints = 60% of 20 = 12
40% of 4 Hearts down 1 (-100) : matchpoints = 40% of 10 = 4
Total matchpoints = (12+4) = 16
The increased (60%) score of +620 reflects the weighting in favour of the NOS.
(Yes I know that if 3 Spades makes then 4 Spades doubled is one off and in real life the score (+50, +100, +200) would also be considered - this is a SIMPLE example)
Playing in England, I naturally regard this as being fairer to the OS as in the alternative (ACBL) world the NOS would get 20 and the OS the reciprocated score. (In fact if it was at all probable that 4 Hearts being doubled and making then that would be the score the OS would get)
Obviously these decisions are subjective, but feedback indicates that players appreciate the effort used to obtain the scores and the fact that something like equity is attained.
(You may note the word 'legally' reached - if the auction involved EW choosing a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested by UI then auctions with THAT BID at THAT TIME are not allowed - known as a 'Reveley' ruling)

Thank you for the explanation. It's surprising that the ACBL is so reluctant to adopt weighted scores because, as weejonnie points out, they result in less hassle for the director. If the director isn't called, the habitual offender gets away with his theft, as in the past. Nowadays, when the director is called in the UK, the law-breaker is delighted to keep even 40% of his ill-gotten gains. The victim licks his wounds in silence, gradually taking on board that this sort of thing is what the WBF "equity" principle is all about

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2014-November-08, 17:12, said:

Playing in England, I naturally regard this as being fairer to the OS as in the alternative (ACBL) world the NOS would get 20 and the OS the reciprocated score. (In fact if it was at all probable that 4 Hearts being doubled and making then that would be the score the OS would get)

Erm, no. The NOS would get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred," so they would get 20 MPs. The OS would get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred," which in your example would seem to be however many matchpoints 4♥X= would have been worth (If it was at all probable that 4♥ would have been doubled). Law 20A1{f} specifically says that assigned adjusted scores need not balance. The requirement for "reciprocal" adjustments applies only to artificial adjusted scores (footnote to Law 12C2{c}).

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2014-November-08, 22:55, said:

Nowadays, when the director is called in the UK, the law-breaker is delighted to keep even 40% of his ill-gotten gains. The victim licks his wounds in silence, gradually taking on board that this sort of thing is what the WBF "equity" principle is all about

Nigel, Weejonnie makes it clear in his example that the law-breaker does not get to keep any of their ill-gotten gains. He does not give them any of the score for 3♠ making, and explains that to do so would be to give an illegal "Reveley" ruling.

The TD gives an assigned score based on what might have happened had there been no irregularity. Weejonnie judges in his hypothetical example that the non-offenders would have bid to 4♥ and that that contract would make exactly some of the time and fail by one trick some of the time, so the score they get is a mixture of those two scores, weighted slightly to favour the non-offenders.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-09, 02:45, said:

Erm, no. The NOS would get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred," so they would get 20 MPs. The OS would get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred," which in your example would seem to be however many matchpoints 4♥X= would have been worth (If it was at all probable that 4♥ would have been doubled). Law 20A1{f} specifically says that assigned adjusted scores need not balance. The requirement for "reciprocal" adjustments applies only to artificial adjusted scores (footnote to Law 12C2{c}).

VixTD, on 2014-November-10, 07:39, said:

Nigel, Weejonnie makes it clear in his example that the law-breaker does not get to keep any of their ill-gotten gains. He does not give them any of the score for 3♠ making, and explains that to do so would be to give an illegal "Reveley" ruling. The TD gives an assigned score based on what might have happened had there been no irregularity. Weejonnie judges in his hypothetical example that the non-offenders would have bid to 4♥ and that that contract would make exactly some of the time and fail by one trick some of the time, so the score they get is a mixture of those two scores, weighted slightly to favour the non-offenders.

I think I understand the argument but I don't agree with it. IMO, When judging fair redress, lawmakers should include deterrence for offenders and provide incentive for victims to call the director (especially given that so many infractions escape a director call). The ruling described by Blackshoe aspires to such ideals. WBF "equity" philosophy (Weighted rulings, protect-yourself legislation, SEWOG laws, and so on) protect and reward the offender but deter director-calls and penalize the victim. The plus-side is less hassle for directors.

[mycroft]

Well, from the point of view of an TD in the ACBL (*), it may result in fewer long nasty discussions with upset and "legitimately" aggrieved players, but weighted scores take more work than L12A1e rulings (even if we have to consider separate scores). Certainly explaining to the opponents that it's "likely" they'd bid (great contract this pair probably wouldn't, in real life, have got to) clear top without the offense or that now that they're considered offenders by law, they're not allowed to defend brilliantly (in a hand where they "clearly" would have got it right - likely they would have, but having seen all the hands, it's 100%), but it's not the only place where we have those sorts of issues, and it's doable.

(*)

Spoiler

Time for another round of "I occasionally work for the ACBL, but never speak for them", I guess

[Vampyr]

I don't know, here people don't get upset with weighted rulings and don't need long explanations of them.

[mycroft]

Which is exactly what I said, wasn't it? That weighted results would result in fewer of those discussions?

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2014-November-10, 17:01, said:

Which is exactly what I said, wasn't it? That weighted results would result in fewer of those discussions?

When weightings seem wrong, we discuss them here but I agree that among the TD benefits of weighted rulings is that they're appealed rarely, if ever.

[Cascade]

nige1, on 2014-November-10, 19:03, said:

When weightings seem wrong, we discuss them here but I agree that among the TD benefits of weighted rulings is that they're appealed rarely, if ever.

And further are at times used as a reason to label an appeal frivolous.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2014-November-10, 20:48, said:

And further are at times used as a reason to label an appeal frivolous.

Really? How so?

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-November-10, 09:25, said:

WBF "equity" philosophy (Weighted rulings, protect-yourself legislation, SEWOG laws, and so on) protect and reward the offender but deter director-calls and penalize the victim.

I don't think SEWOG has any place in this discussion. The aim is to repair the damage due to the infraction, whether you weight probabilities or go all out against the offenders. The aim of SEWOG laws is to separate damage due to the infraction from damage that the non offending side did to themselves. I think it would be a bad idea to throw the SEWOG Laws out and just forget everything that happens after the infraction, no matter how foolish it is.

In practice, SEWOG Laws are applied rarely, but they are needed to prevent the NOS from messing up the game. When I was a beginner I had a SEWOG ruling against me. I was sure that the opponents had committed an infraction and not knowing that there was such a thing as SEWOG, I gambled by bidding a slam, thinking that I wouldn't be damaged if it made and would get a good result from the TD if it did go down. Well... the slam didn't make and the TD didn't give me a good result. But he showed me the SEWOG Laws and explained that they were there exactly to prevent what I had done. He also added that they were not meant for just any mistakes the NOS makes: they need to be extreme. If you think "I wouldn't have done that" about an action, it is not a SEWOG. Only if your thoughts start with "WTF?!?" (or there is a technical error like a revoke) you can consider a SEWOG.

Other than that, I agree with you. I am not really happy with the use of a weighted AS. In theory, the weighting should be done objectively. If a contract depends on a two way finesse, without any clues to declarer, he will get it right 50% of the time. This means that the weighting should be 50-50. In practice, the TDs will give a weighting of 60-40 in favor of the NOS. This already points out that there is something inherently wrong in giving a weighted AS: If TDs really believed that objective weighting was fair, they would give 50-50.

Suppose that you are playing for first place in a tournament. You need a score of 70% on the last board to win. Unfortunately, the opponents use UI, and an AS is needed with the two way finesse. Without the infraction, if you would have guessed right, you score 75% of the matchpoints and win. If you would have guessed wrong, you score 25% and are second. As a result, you would have had a 50% chance to win and a 50% chance to finish second. The infraction changed everything. The TD awards a weighted score 60-40 in your favor, netting you 60% on the board and a 100% chance to finish in second place. Doesn't seem fair to me...

So, my problem with weighted scores is not so much that weighting isn't fair. My problem is that weighting makes it impossible for the NOS to get a cold top (unless they already had the top before the infraction).

Rik

[VixTD]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-11, 01:49, said:

Other than that, I agree with you. I am not really happy with the use of a weighted AS. In theory, the weighting should be done objectively. If a contract depends on a two way finesse, without any clues to declarer, he will get it right 50% of the time. This means that the weighting should be 50-50. In practice, the TDs will give a weighting of 60-40 in favor of the NOS. This already points out that there is something inherently wrong in giving a weighted AS: If TDs really believed that objective weighting was fair, they would give 50-50.

The reasoning behind the application of what is often called "sympathetic weighting" is law 12B1:

Quote

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

The extra 10% or so weighting in favour of the non-offending side is to make allowances for any error (in the sense of uncertainty) in the TD's judgement and make sure an offending side do not gain from an irregularity, without granting the sort of unjustified windfall that Nigel seems to be arguing for.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-11, 01:49, said:

Suppose that you are playing for first place in a tournament. You need a score of 70% on the last board to win. Unfortunately, the opponents use UI, and an AS is needed with the two way finesse. Without the infraction, if you would have guessed right, you score 75% of the matchpoints and win. If you would have guessed wrong, you score 25% and are second. As a result, you would have had a 50% chance to win and a 50% chance to finish second. The infraction changed everything. The TD awards a weighted score 60-40 in your favor, netting you 60% on the board and a 100% chance to finish in second place. Doesn't seem fair to me...

So, my problem with weighted scores is not so much that weighting isn't fair. My problem is that weighting makes it impossible for the NOS to get a cold top (unless they already had the top before the infraction).

You could equally well construct a scenario in which a pair need to score no worse than 60% on the last board to win the tournament, so the TD's ruling hands it to them on a plate. If they'd played the board they would have run the risk of scoring 25% and coming second.

I take your point that your pair cannot take what they see as a necessary risky action to win, but what do you propose instead?