Adjustment questions XI

[xx1943]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqt65h6da8762cat&w=s4hktdt5ckj65432&e=sj92h9875d94cq97&s=sak873haqdkqj3c8]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

------- pass... pass 1♠

3♣.... pass... pass. X

pass. 3♠...... 4♣... 4♥

pass. 4♠...... pass 5♣

X....... 5♦...... pass. 6♠

pass. pass... pass♠

 

After the lead of an small ♥ 13 tricks were claimed.

 

WEST called me to that table and complained about UI.

All players convinced: North said "misclick" after Wests X before bidding 4♠.

 

This is an infraction no doubt. I gave a warning to NORTH.

But how to adjust?

 

I decided: North first pass and 3♠-bid are very strange and tremendous underbids. It is not 100% clearcut for SOUTH to bid on after pds 4♠. Therefore 40%/60%.

 

SOUTH asked me why adjust A-+ not 4♠+3.

The lead of a small heart was possible against 6♠, but against 4 ............?

Therefore the only alternative to A-+ could be 4♠+2?

 

Your opinions pls.

 

regards

 

Al

[Gerardo]

4♠+3 seems fine, no ♥ loser anyway on other leads?

Plus some PP if available (not).

[McBruce]

13 tricks are always the result. If BBO allowed for procedural penalties I would adjust to 4S+3 and give N-S a quarter-board penalty, but without that I think best is to approximate the effect by awarding A-+. Perhaps this is not a good precedent to set, but we need to be able to give PPs. Please Uday? :unsure:

[mink]

Hi Al,

 

I did not really understand when exactly North said "misclick". But it looks like at least 4♠ was already bid when it was Souths turn again. South has no further bid now so the score has to be set to 4♠+3 - no doubt. Given the 4♥ bid by South the ♥ lead was a bad idea no matter which contract.

 

But even if you are in doubt if 12 or 13 tricks would be the correct result in 4♠, the difference is not relevant, as I expect a lot of players to find the slam, so 4♠ is a bad result anyway, no matter how many tricks, probably worse than 40%. So assigning A-+ is a better for NS than either 4♠+2 or 4♠+3 would be.

 

This reasoning is not relevant, however, as law 16A2 states, "... assign an adjusted score ...", if damage was caused by UI from partner. Everywhere where ave+- or something like this is applicable, the laws use the term "artificial adjusted score". Therefore "adjusted score" here means that it should be a score that could have been reached by normal play. (Maybe a splitscore, but this is not implemented here.) Ave-+ and the like are artificial.

 

Karl

[keylime]

Gotta be a split score c'mon. This one's clear. The more that mechanical errors occur, the LESS the TD's are willing to do the right thing and give the correct assigned score(s). There MUST be a way to give split scores - it's getting difficult because field protection's being compromised for the sake of "continuity".

[inquiry]

I'm not sure what is going on here yet. The word description and the bids don't add up..... The words say, that all players said north said "misclick" after WEST's DOUBLE and before bidding 4♠. But. the double is not shown before west's bid of 4♠, it is shown before north's bid of 5♦. (see auction reproduced below).

 

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

------- pass... pass 1♠

3♣.... pass... pass. X

pass. 3♠...... 4♣... 4♥

pass. 4♠...... pass 5♣

X....... 5♦...... pass. 6♠

pass. pass... pass♠

 

So let's say that the shown auction is correct, and north said Misclick not before bidding 4♠. but before biddign 5♦. It is not clear that this saying misclick provides any real UI to south. Maybe north meant to pass, or bid 5♥ or 5♠. The fact that he said "misclick" actually provides a reason for south not to jump to slam as he did. If the word misclick came here, I would allow the results to stand.

 

Now, if instead of as shown, the double came over south's 4♥ bid, and north bid 4♠, I would most certainly adjust the score back to 4♠. After north bids 3♠ and then in light of partners slam try, rebids 4♠. how in the world can south continue forward without UI.

 

In fact, this entire auction is funny. North passed 3♣, and bid only an apparenlty nonforcing 3♠ over his partner's double. This entire auction is fishy to me. So given that, although I said I would allow the results to stand if the auction was as shown, I would see if there were any other totatlly bizzarre auction reaching very good contracts (7♠ better, how come north not bid that after his partner forces to slam and he has shown NOTHING and he has a rock?). So while I would allow the score to stand (temporarily) in this first case, if I found other evidence, I would see if I could have someone investigate this pair futher.

 

Ben