Ruling?

[Trinidad]

This is one of my pet peeves. My rule is (I am a director myself):

 

Do not give a split score unless you are 200% sure that you need to give one.

 

It is very good that there exists a possibility for giving a split score. It prevents the non offending side from doing something wild or gambling and it forces them to keep playing bridge. (It doesn't force them to play error free bridge, but they are not allowed to make any serious errors: revoke, overruff partner's king of trumps with your ace, etc.)

 

However, in practice, there is no need to assign split scores. It just doesn't happen often that one side commits an infraction and the other a serious error (of the type 'where was your brain?') on the same board.

 

At times, you may think that you see a serious error. But invariably it turns out to be a reasonable action (not perfect, just reasonable) with the information that the player actually held. Directors also tend to forget that the non offending side has to play as if there was no infraction. (If they play on the assumption that there was an infraction, they will get a bad result when everything is normal, that is without an infraction.)

 

In this case, they need to assume that East has his 3♥ bid. If I am sitting South, and I see this auction and this dummy, assuming that everybody played by the rules, I would be very happy if I can take 2 tricks. I would be 98% sure that EW have missed a slam. It would be completely impossible that there would be a fourth trick. With this information, you cannot seriously call it an error if NS let the game slip through (and there are many ways how this could happen).

 

Occasionally you may see someone trying for something wild and gambling at lower levels (the double shot that Adam mentioned). In that case the player has never heard of a split score. Usually you can even get them to explain why they took the gambling action. (They will say something like "If it works: I win. If it doesn't: I don't loose.". And the look on their face will say: "Aren't I smart?"). You give him a split score to make sure that this was his last double shot (and will explain the rules carefully, with the Lawbook in hand, and the finger on Law 12C1b).

 

In my TD career, I have given a total of about three split scores. All of them occured in my first year as a TD. I don't remember them, but I am very sure that each of these rulings must have been incorrect.

 

Rik

[nige1]

weird compromise 12C3 rulings

In individual events the director enforces the rectifications in these Laws and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores equally against both members of the offending side, even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender’s partner if of the opinion that offender’s partner is in no way to blame.

:unsure:  :unsure:  :blink:  :blink:

:( Thank you Blackshoe. Sorry all. As a mere player, I cited the wrong law.

:) Instead, (as Blackshoe is fully aware) I should have quoted

In order to do equity and unless the Regulating nuthority forbids it, an assigned adjustedJ score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

:) Where is Kafka, now that we really need him?

[blackshoe]

The purpose of a score adjustment is to restore equity as best we can. Law 12C1© allows directors to do that when it is not clear precisely what "equity" is. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it, and I don't know why you do, Nigel. Nor do I see why we need Kafka. You seem to be doing a pretty darn good job in his place. :unsure:

[blackshoe]

Rik:

 

If you're speaking of a split score under Law 12A1(:unsure:, I would agree that such cases are rare, although I'm not so sure they're as rare as you seem to think. No matter, that's a minor nit. However, there is another kind of split score, and we in Zone 2 are still stuck with it. That's the one under Law 12C1(e), and that one is in my estimation much more common.

 

Actually, I'm not sure what the situation is in Zone 5 (Caribbean and Central America) because the website still lists the elections under the 1997 laws. :unsure:

[skjaeran]

(have fun, scoring program writers!).

Huh, in Norway we've had a program that could score like this for at least three years now I believe - probably longer.

[Trinidad]

Rik:

 

If you're speaking of a split score under Law 12A1(B), I would agree that such cases are rare, although I'm not so sure they're as rare as you seem to think. No matter, that's a minor nit. However, there is another kind of split score, and we in Zone 2 are still stuck with it. That's the one under Law 12C1(e), and that one is in my estimation much more common.

 

Actually, I'm not sure what the situation is in Zone 5 (Caribbean and Central America) because the website still lists the elections under the 1997 laws. :unsure:

You are obviously right about the 12C1e split score. And no, I wasn't talking about 12C1e.

 

You are also right about 12C1b. It is not as black and white as I state. But my point is clear (and you agree with me, so why am I writing this? :)):

Many TD's will give a split score as soon as the non offending side slipped or the TD disagrees with their actions. To those TD's, I would say that they certainly will make a lot less mistakes if they stop giving 12C1b split scores all together.

 

Rik

[mr1303]

It is one of my pet peeves where people just quote law numbers as opposed to what it actually says.

 

I do not have a copy of the laws next to my computer, and I'm sure many other people don't as well.

[dburn]

It is one of my pet peeves where people just quote law numbers as opposed to what it actually says.

 

I do not have a copy of the laws next to my computer, and I'm sure many other people don't as well.

If you have a computer and can post to this forum, you also have access to at least one copy of the Laws. You can visit this page to download the UK version, and the NBOs of other countries may provide a similar service.

[nige1]

It is one of my pet peeves where people just quote law numbers as opposed to what it actually says.

do not have a copy of the laws next to my computer, and I'm sure many other people don't as well.

IIf you have a computer and can post to this forum, you also have access to at least one copy of the Laws. You can visit this page to download the UK version, and the NBOs of other countries may provide a similar service.

• David's link is to a PDF version.
  
• Anna Gudge and Mark Newton have posted a Word version of the latest version of the new laws
  
• What is frustrating is how few WBF documents are presented as easy-access, compact, web-friendly HTML pages.
  

[blackshoe]

Yeah, that's frustrating. If it was a little more frustrating, I might actually do something about it (it's not all that hard). But I see no point in just complaining, particularly complaining to people who can't or won't do anything about it. You might try making a suggestion to Grattan Endicott, or to various webmasters of NBO sites.

 

It is possible to include hyperlinks within a pdf document, btw. You don't have to produce html pages to make the laws "web friendly".

[paulg]

• 
   
  
• David's link is to a PDF version. 
   
  
• Anna Gudge and Mark Newton have posted a Word version of the latest version of the new laws
   
  
• What is frustrating is how few WBF documents are presented as easy-access, compact, web-friendly HTML pages.
   
  

I created an HTML version of the laws.

 

It is the least compact of the three versions (Acrobat easily the best) and the formatting is not so accessible.

 

Making reference documents available in PDF seems fine to me.

 

Paul

[nige1]

But I see no point in just complaining, particularly complaining to people who can't or won't do anything about it. You might try making a suggestion to Grattan Endicott, or to various webmasters of NBO sites.

On the Bridge Laws Mailing List, I've often asked the WBFLC (Grattan Endicott) and NBOs to publish minutes, WBF conditions of contest, regulations, and laws as hyperlinked HTLML pages. We don't all have spare memory and fast internet connections.

[blackshoe]

Well, then you've done what you could do. Complaining about it here isn't going to get you anywhere.

[JanM]

Hijacking a little :). I haven't been able to find an easy way to convert Word documents to good HTML. The converter in Word itself doesn't do a good job, copying and pasting usually messes up formatting and numbering. As a result, all of the Conditions of Contest posted on the USBF site are PDFs and I spend a ridiculous amount of time converting tables that are easy to produce in Word or Excel into web pages (I'm not good at HTML; I'm using the Joomla editor). I'd actually prefer to post HTML if there was an easy way to do that. Any suggestions?

[paulg]

I used OpenOffice for my test but it's probably similar to Word in terms of its effectiveness of generating HTML from a (ooo/Word) document.

 

I am pretty good with html so I don't tend to use an editor when working with it.

 

p

[nige1]

Hijacking a little :). I haven't been able to find an easy way to convert Word documents to good HTML. The converter in Word itself doesn't do a good job, copying and pasting usually messes up formatting and numbering. As a result, all of the Conditions of Contest posted on the USBF site are PDFs and I spend a ridiculous amount of time converting tables that are easy to produce in Word or Excel into web pages (I'm not good at HTML; I'm using the Joomla editor). I'd actually prefer to post HTML if there was an easy way to do that. Any suggestions?

When you've saved a Word document as HTML, you may use utilities like Dave Raggetts HTML TIDY that can be configured to remove buckets of superfluous Word tags and isolate much of the formatting as style. Even TIDY can't remove all the Word gobbledygook however and you have to clean up by hand, using an editor. Once you have done so, you can use TIDY again to convert the resulting mess into valid strict HTLML or XHTML.

 

i was surprised when Cardsharp said that an HTML version was more bulky than the PDF version, because that hasn't been my experience; but anyway I tend to to convert large documents into several linked XHTML pages.

[barmar]

Suppose that opponents, through some abuse of UI, reach 6NT (say there is a slow response to blackwood and opponents then choose to bid on when no logical person would do so off two aces). I am on lead with two aces. I lead one ace, then continue that suit. Eventually the contract makes.

However, details matter.

 

Suppose dummy has KQJ in the suit of the second ace. If you reasonably assume that the opponents wouldn't bid a slam off two cashing aces, you might conclude that declarer has a void in that suit, and cashing the ace would set up a bunch of pitches. Happy that you guessed the correct ace to lead first, you now make a passive continuation, hoping declarer will attempt a ruffing finesse later.

 

Failure to cash this ace would hardly be "wild and gambling", there's sound bridge reasoning to it.

[Trinidad]

Suppose that opponents, through some abuse of UI, reach 6NT (say there is a slow response to blackwood and opponents then choose to bid on when no logical person would do so off two aces). I am on lead with two aces. I lead one ace, then continue that suit. Eventually the contract makes.

However, details matter.

 

Suppose dummy has KQJ in the suit of the second ace. If you reasonably assume that the opponents wouldn't bid a slam off two cashing aces, you might conclude that declarer has a void in that suit, and cashing the ace would set up a bunch of pitches. Happy that you guessed the correct ace to lead first, you now make a passive continuation, hoping declarer will attempt a ruffing finesse later.

 

Failure to cash this ace would hardly be "wild and gambling", there's sound bridge reasoning to it.

 

My standard of play is just not good enough since I haven't mastered the technique of a ruffing finesse in a NT contract. But maybe, with hard practice, one day I will.

 

:)

 

Rik

 

P.S. (And now serious) In general, everything you wrote makes sense, if you are defending a suit contract. So yes, there are definitely more things to consider. This is even conceivably possible against a 6NT contract. (I could imagine the Rueful Rabbit gaining a top in 6NT-1 when his opponents cash two aces while the field is in 3NT -2, against opponents who don't cash. ;)) But I think Adam's example was pretty clear.

[awm]

Maybe another way to view this is to say....

 

Suppose that I have some unauthorized information during the auction. This isn't fair, but the laws don't "assess a penalty" for this. Basically the point is that we are supposed to restore equity.

 

Essentially this means that the bidding at my table (with the UI) should not lead me to a superior contract which I would have been unlikely to reach without the UI.

 

So the director needs to determine four things:

 

(1) Was there, in fact, UI?

(2) Were there logical alternatives (LA) to any of the decisions I made subsequent to the UI?

(3) If so, did the UI suggest one action over another and did I take the action the UI suggested?

(4) If there was UI, and I had logical alternatives, and I did pick the one suggested by the UI... did this sequence of events lead me to a superior contract?

 

If the answer to all four questions is "yes" then the table result should be adjusted.

 

However, it is possible that the answer to the first three questions is "yes" but the fourth question is "no." In other words, there was UI, there were LA, I took the "wrong one" but this actually landed me in a worse contract than the one I would've reached by taking my other logical alternatives. Of course, if I then proceed to get a lousy score there is no problem and the table result stands. But if I end up getting a good score essentially because the opponents screwed up an easy defense or took some insane action in the bidding then there is not really a need to adjust. The damage is due to the opponents choices, not due to the UI.

 

Now it's often non-obvious what it means to be in a "good" or "bad" contract -- a contract which fails double-dummy but will often be misdefended might well be a "good" contract in the sense that I will usually get a good result from it. So the standard to be applied is that the opponents basically "failed to play bridge" -- that players of their standard should've easily been able to extract a good result from me on this board and yet they failed to do so (i.e. they sacrificed for -1100 in a six-card fit over a game that was going to fail, or they failed to set 6NTX holding two cashing aces in the opening leader's hand). Obviously there is some director's discretion here.

[blackshoe]

Actually, in the situation you posit, the law requires that you, the "offending side" who apparently used UI to advantage, should get an adjustment based on what might have happened, not to your advantage, absent the UI, regardless whether the NOS "continue to play bridge". The NOS does not get redress, however, for the part of the damage they suffered which is attributed to their failure to "play bridge". They do get redress for the remainder - the part attributed to the irregularity. Frankly, I"m not at all sure I know how to make that determination, but that's what the law requires.