Ruling question

[zzmiy]

[hv=d=s&n=sakqxxhaxxxxdxcxx&s=sxxhkqxdxxxcakqxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Bidding goes as follows:

1♣(South) - 3♦(Alerted) - 3♠ (not asking about the meaning of alerted bid)- pass

3NT - all pass

3NT was bid after E explained partner's 3♦ as preempt in hearts.

W appeared to have natural ♦s :huh: and defence cashed 7 tricks for down 3.

EW use transfer preempts openings, but there's nothing in CC about whether they play them in this situation.

 

Any work for TD here? :rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

East-West get to keep their 3N - 3

North - South get a proceedural penalty for failing to complete their CC adequately

[P_Marlowe]

East-West get to keep their 3N - 3

North - South get a proceedural penalty for failing to complete their CC adequately

Agree, although I guess you want to give EW the

procedural penalty.

 

If you dont ask for an explanantion you have to live

with the result

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am pretty sure, that North intended to bid 4H

over 3NT, why did he not do this?

[kgr]

East-West get to keep their 3N - 3

North - South get a proceedural penalty for failing to complete their CC adequately

Agree, although I guess you want to give EW the

procedural penalty.

 

If you dont ask for an explanantion you have to live

with the result

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am pretty sure, that North intended to bid 4H

over 3NT, why did he not do this?

- 3NT was bid after E explained partner's 3♦ as preempt in hearts. Therefor Souths 3NT makes sense and North Pass also. I would correct to the best result for NS that seems likely with correct explanation and same result for EW (without additional penalty).

- Who says that the CC is not correctly filled. Maybe EW don't play transfer preempts when overcalling and only the explanation was wrong.

[RMB1]

There is insufficient evidence that EW play 3♦ as a transfer overcall.

So I rule (Law 75) that EW agreement was 3♦ was natural.

So South was misinformed and would not have bid 3NT with the correct information.

What South would have bid is a harder question and I would ask some players:

4♣ and 4♠ are possible, 4♦ would be interesting if it was choice-of-games.

 

I would adjust to some weighting of some of 4♥, 4♠, 5♣ making however many tricks.

If I can not give weighted scores, I award the most favourable of those results.

 

Robin

[Finch]

5C on a trump lead or trump switch is cute, as you should duck the first round of trumps.

[kgr]

....

What South would have bid is a harder question and I would ask some players:

4♣ and 4♠ are possible, 4♦ would be interesting if it was choice-of-games.

Agree

I would adjust to some weighting of some of 4♥, 4♠, 5♣ making however many tricks. 

If I can not give weighted scores, I award the most favourable of those results.

Am I allowed to rule that NS get the best likely result? If you give a weighted score then the probability that NS get less then they would get without the Mis-information if 50%. And the probability that EW get more then they would get without the Mis-information if 50%.

If prefer to be at the save side for the non-offending pair and always give the most favourable iso weighted score.

In this case I would rule 6♥= for NS (maybe I should give 6♥+1).

(If 6♥ can not be made then I rule 4♥+?)

[hrothgar]

Agree, although I guess you want to give EW the

procedural penalty.

 

If you dont ask for an explanantion you have to live

with the result

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am pretty sure, that North intended to bid 4H

over 3NT, why did he not do this?

- 3NT was bid after E explained partner's 3♦ as preempt in hearts. Therefor Souths 3NT makes sense and North Pass also. I would correct to the best result for NS that seems likely with correct explanation and same result for EW (without additional penalty).

- Who says that the CC is not correctly filled. Maybe EW don't play transfer preempts when overcalling and only the explanation was wrong.

Sorry

 

My mistake. I read the problem much too quickly...

 

I decline judgement until I get more information about what precisely took place at the table

[cherdano]

Any work for TD here? ;)

Yes. Try to find out EW's actual agreements.

Most likely he will conclude misinformation.

[ggwhiz]

I expect the explanation was wrong as I don't know of anyone who plays transfer pre-empts as an overcall. An honest attempt at disclosure but WRONG. And it did damage the opponents.

 

Too many possibilities for me to divine a result so I would award N/S the better of

 

1. Average plus

2. Percentage of the rest of their hands

 

and E/W an average minus.

[jdonn]

I expect the explanation was wrong as I don't know of anyone who plays transfer pre-empts as an overcall. An honest attempt at disclosure but WRONG. And it did damage the opponents.

 

Too many possibilities for me to divine a result so I would award N/S the better of

 

1. Average plus

2. Percentage of the rest of their hands

 

and E/W an average minus.

That's very lazy directing, it's your job to 'divine' a result. It's simply wrong to award an artificial score when a bridge result can reasonably be assigned. How fair is it to NS if their actual score might have been higher than avg+?

 

By the way, I'm pretty sure avg+ on a board is automatically your score for the game if that would be higher?

[blackshoe]

By the way, I'm pretty sure avg+ on a board is automatically your score for the game if that would be higher?

Essentially, yes. Law 12C2©.

[jdonn]

By the way, I'm pretty sure avg+ on a board is automatically your score for the game if that would be higher?

Essentially, yes. Law 12C2©.

Yup good call.

 

Wow 12 - C - 2 - c, too many subheadings!

[ggwhiz]

I don't consider it lazy directing when there are too many possible outcomes. 4 spades? 4 hearts? 5 clubs? Who would bid what, when? A 3 spade bid followed by 4 hearts doesn't garauntee 5-cards in hearts does it?

 

As soon as the non-offending side has to make a couple or three bids to get to their max. spot, it gets muddy.

 

NABC casebooks are full of hands where the committee decides they simply can't decide what would occur in a complicated situation.

 

Also, you might be right about avg+ = percentage on other boards but I'm not sure.

[jdonn]

I don't consider it lazy directing when there are too many possible outcomes.

With all due respect, there just aren't in this case.

 

4 spades?  4 hearts?  5 clubs?  Who would bid what, when?  A 3 spade bid followed by 4 hearts doesn't garauntee 5-cards in hearts does it?

4♠? 5♣?? Where are you getting these contracts from. Every game contract in a long suit held by either player is not an outcome you need to consider. Just look at what contract would have gotten them the best result (4♥ or 6♥ in this case, depending on the breaks), and if there is a reasonably likely auction to get them there (easy for either contract) then that's the contract. It's easy. You are confusing yourself by taking a needlessly long train of thought to contracts you don't have to consider.

 

As soon as the non-offending side has to make a couple or three bids to get to their max. spot, it gets muddy.

That's what you are there for!

 

NABC casebooks are full of hands where the committee decides they simply can't decide what would occur in a complicated situation.

That's a very small percentage of the total cases, and in the instances when a bridge result could have been assigned then those decisions have tended to be lambasted and very poorly rated by the casebook commentators.

 

Also, you might be right about avg+ = percentage on other boards but I'm not sure.

Might be right? Blackshoe kindly referred you to the exact law!

[zzmiy]

Thanks all for your opinions.

Actual ruling at the table was adjusting board to 60/40.

Most of the field was in 6♥ making, though I'm not sure if we'd have managed to bid it (I was S on this deal) B)

 

2hrothgar what additional info do you need?

[Codo]

I really hate this ruling. :)

60/40 is given when there is no possibility to create a real score. F.e. Unplayable boards with one side guilty.

This is not the case here, so it was a lazy call.

The score should have been 6 Heart making.

[JoAnneM]

There is a good reason to hate this ruling - it is illegal. Just as ACBL doesn't give split scores for hands played it doesn't give avg+/avg-, it gives actual adjustments. Avg+/Avg- is for hands not played or fouled boards.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[keylime]

I think this should be a weighted ruling of percentages, i.e. the three part kind.

[skjaeran]

In ACBL I guess you'd rule 6♥ for both sides.

 

Elsewhere you'd probably rule a weighted score 6♥=/4♥+2. Something like 75% weight for slam.

 

JoAnne is absolutely correct about avg+/- being an illegal ruling.

[Rossoneri]

I agree with Jdonn.

 

A+/A- simply just reeks of laziness from the director...I would tend to agree with a weighted ruling between 6H making and 4H+2.

[david_c]

There is a good reason to hate this ruling - it is illegal.  Just as ACBL doesn't give split scores for hands played it doesn't give avg+/avg-, it gives actual adjustments.  Avg+/Avg- is for hands not played or fouled boards.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong - actually just a few months out of date. Law 12C1(d) in the new lawbook allows a TD to award an artificial score when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious". Since this condition is a matter of [the TD's] opinion, we can no longer say the ruling is illegal, only that it shows extremely bad judgement. As others have said, it is lazy directing.

[Elianna]

There is a good reason to hate this ruling - it is illegal.   Just as ACBL doesn't give split scores for hands played it doesn't give avg+/avg-, it gives actual adjustments.   Avg+/Avg- is for hands not played or fouled boards.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

ACBL allows split scores, just not weighted between them.

 

So you can give one side one score, and another a different score, but you can't do percentages of one score or another.

 

You can look at NABC casebooks for evidence of split scores.

 

Usually directors don't like to give them, especially at clubs, because "it confuses the players". Or they don't know how to input them to ACBLscore. Also, I've seen directors mess up the criterion for how to decide which score each pair gets, and it's different for the offending side vs. nonoffending side. I don't have the rule book in front of me to quote from, though.

 

But I agree that if a result was reached at a table (so the board was deemed playable) that A+/A- does not seem to be an acceptable result. From my memory of the laws it's illegal, but I'd have to look that up to be sure. And looking at the next post, I guess that's changed.

[bidule4]

assuming there was MI

 

law 75 leads to law 12:

 

law 12 C 1 (e)

(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending

side is the most favourable result that was likely had the

irregularity not occurred.

(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most

unfavourable result that was at all probable.

 

(http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsComplete.pdf)

 

is 6H= "likely" ?

 

maybe

 

is 6H= "at all probable" ?

 

yes

[MFA]

I don't know ACBL rules (and I have been grossly surpriced before), but with normal (:wacko:) rules, this is likely a weighted score between 4♥ and 6♥. NS are not exactly on track towards slam at the moment, so a full 6♥ seems a bit much.