Weighted scores problem

[lazcatluc]

[hv=n=sjhaqj5dqtxxcajxx&w=saxh964daxxxcktxx&e=s9xxxhkt872dxc9xx&s=skqt87xh3dkj9xcqx]399|300|NS bid to 3nt with opps silent. East leads ♥2. North asks about leads, East explains "4th". The play goes: x, 9, Q. ♠J, 9, K, A. ♥6, A, x, x. ♦x, x, K, A. ♥4... down 1[/hv]

 

After play is completed, North checks EW's convention card. The CC states "4th/low". North calls the TD and claims that there was a misinformation that caused him to go down in 3nt. Had he been given the full explanation, he would have played a small ♥ instead of going up with the A when he did.

 

1. Was there a misinformation?

2. If yes, should this be a "weighted scores" decision?

 

The TD decided to award 3nt= to both sides judging that there was a misinformation and that it influenced the play. Other TDs thought that there should be a weighted score (60% for making and 40% for going down in 3nt) to reflect the possibility of going down because declarer might actually go up with the A even when he receives the complete information in the CC.

 

Should weighted scores be used in a situation like this? it's normal to use them when declarer has to guess which side to finesse for example. But here, they seem to be used for guessing what declarer's state of mind will be. If it's ok to use them, how can we arrive at 60/40 and not 70/30 or 90/10?

[gordontd]

I think we'd need to find out more what "4th/low" means. When do they lead 4th, when do they lead low?

[lazcatluc]

At the table, East said "4th". In the cc, it was written "4th/low". East said that the "low" in the cc is for a situation when they have a long 6-7 card suit and the 4th would be a high-ish card. Of course, this clarification is written nowhere on the cc.

[gordontd]

If we accept what East has said, there has been no misinformation and East has just made a deceptive lead. But I'd be reluctant to accept this without any further evidence. What did West say?

[lazcatluc]

West supported East in everything he said - but after he said it. B)

[gordontd]

Did East say why he led low? My guess is because the fourth highest was a high-ish card, in which case their true agreement seems to be that they lead low whenever the fourth highest card is high-ish, not just from 6/7 card suits. That would suggest a degree of misinformation, but I'm not sure that Declarer would often play differently with the correct information. Was this Matchpoints or IMPs?

[lazcatluc]

This was Teams, IMP. East said he led low with the purpose of deceiving declarer.

[Cascade]

Curious.

 

Law 21 B 1 b "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

 

I would have thought this standard applied however there is no similar law when the misexplanation is for a card play agreement.

[gordontd]

Curious.

 

Law 21 B 1 b "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

 

I would have thought this standard applied however there is no similar law when the misexplanation is for a card play agreement.

The same standard does apply, but here we do have some evidence - in the form of the system card and the assertions of the two players. The question is what weight to give to that evidence, and probably the director at the table is in the best position to decide that.

[mjj29]

This was Teams, IMP. East said he led low with the purpose of deceiving declarer.

How are you ever going to allow a false card if you don't believe the player when he says "I deliberately false carded"

[gordontd]

How are you ever going to allow a false card if you don't believe the player when he says "I deliberately false carded"

I don't think there's any suggestion that you should routinely disbelieve such a statement, but nor should you just accept it without further enquiry.

[jvage]

Should weighted scores be used in a situation like this? it's normal to use them when declarer has to guess which side to finesse for example. But here, they seem to be used for guessing what declarer's state of mind will be. If it's ok to use them, how can we arrive at 60/40 and not 70/30 or 90/10?

The discussion has focused on whether or not there was misinformation, this is not clear. Assuming the TD rules misinformation a weighted score is certainly possible. The suggested score (60% of 3NT making and 40% of 3NT going off) indicates that in the opinion of the consulted TD's with correct information declarer would make 3NT around half the time (weighted in favour of the non-offenders). Even in a jurisdiction where use of 12C1C (weighted scores) is possible one would rule like the TD did (100% of 3NT making) if one believes he would most likely (say 80-90% of the time) make 3NT with correct information, which in practice still means weighing in favour of the non-offenders.

 

John

[blackshoe]

How are you ever going to allow a false card if you don't believe the player when he says "I deliberately false carded"

I don't think there's any suggestion that you should routinely disbelieve such a statement, but nor should you just accept it without further enquiry.

Given that East has already said that he deliberately false carded, what further enquiry would you make?

[Cascade]

Curious.

 

Law 21 B 1 b "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

 

I would have thought this standard applied however there is no similar law when the misexplanation is for a card play agreement.

The same standard does apply

On what basis?

[bluejak]

The problem with this is that the pair are not playing 4th according to the SC, West claimed they are playing 4th, and East did not lead 4th. The evidence, while not overwhelming, is that West gave MI.

 

Some of the answers seem to suggest that the fact East claimed he led a deceptively false card means there was no MI. I find the logical link strange, to put it mildly: it is perfectly possible he led a deceptive card and that there was MI!

 

Some people seem to worry about whether we should assume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken play in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise. The answer is certainly yes, it is normal TD and AC practice. Why does the Law book not say so? No idea, but that is a question for the WBFLC, or possibly our 'Changing Laws & Regulations' forum, not this one.

 

Is the evidence compelling that there was no MI? Not really, in fact we are pretty sure there was MI. Until we know why West said '4th' and the card said '4th/low' we cannot be sure.

 

Do we routinely assume someone who says he false-carded was telling the truth? There are two answers to that. The first one is No, we do not automatically believe self-serving statements, we give them a certain weight in our consideration as to what happened when we come to make a judgement. The other answer is, of course, as discussed above, that even if we believe them it does not mean there was not MI.

 

The OP asked whether there was MI - Yes, it seems likely - and whether it is a weighted scores position. If there was MI then Yes, this is a typical weighted scores ruling. Only if the TD is pretty sure he knows what would have happened does he assign a single score. Weighted scores are the norm in adjustments.

 

How are you ever going to allow a false card if you don't believe the player when he says "I deliberately false carded"

A bit extreme! How are we ever going to trust a girlfriend in anything she says if on one occasion she said "I do not want to kiss you." Of course the answer is that you make a judgement - in both the girlfriend case and the bridge case.

 

Another thing: East led the ♥2, and according to the OP, East described their leads as 4th while knowing this to be both untrue and that he had led a card that was not 4th. I expect this was a typo in the OP, but if true then I think disciplinary action is called for against East.

 

Having considered all the evidence, I think that the evidence is in favour of MI. E/W need to describe their methods more fully if they are really are playing what they claimed, both on the SC and in answer to questions. So I am adjusting, and a weighted score looks obvious.

 

Suppose, for argument's sake, that the correct explanation is "We lead fourth, but occasionally a lower card when the fourth would be a high card: usually this is when we have six or seven". Now, does that mean that declarer would automatically duck the second round or hearts? Absolutely not. So in my view a reasonable result is:

 

    40% of 3NT =

+ 60% of 3NT -1

 

If the explanation of 4th really was given by East then I am tacking on a 12 imp disciplinary penalty and reporting him to the authorities.

 

If it's ok to use them, how can we arrive at 60/40 and not 70/30 or 90/10?

It is a judgement decision, like so many other decisions by TDs and ACs. We find all the facts, consider, consult, poll and make a judgement.

[barmar]

How are you ever going to allow a false card if you don't believe the player when he says "I deliberately false carded"

I don't think there's any suggestion that you should routinely disbelieve such a statement, but nor should you just accept it without further enquiry.

You're allowed to mislead declarer with your card play, but not with your explanations. When the false card coincides with the misinformation, you've got a problem.

 

It's kind of like UI situations -- explaining that you had planned to make the bid before the UI doesn't help if the bid is the LA suggested by the UI.

[lazcatluc]

Another thing: East led the ♥2, and according to the OP, East described their leads as 4th while knowing this to be both untrue and that he had led a card that was not 4th. I expect this was a typo in the OP, but if true then I think disciplinary action is called for against East.

 

It's not a typo. East led the ♥2 and then, when asked, he said they lead the 4th. So it's the same player!

 

When confronted with his own cc, East said that the "low" in the cc applies to some different situation, not the one at the table, which he explained correctly in his view (i.e. according to their agreement as he understood it).

[bluejak]

Ok, then he has been unethical. They lead low from six when the fourth might be a high card: that certainly might affect this situation where he has led low from five when the fourth was a high card. He has deliberately withheld this information. Report him to the authorities and give him a DP.