Simple (I think) judgement ruling

[Vampyr]

Well, exactly. You're hitting the nail on the head. Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength - and it was my partner's judgement that her hand was, indeed, below invitational strength. And I am not about to criticise her judgement in context. Indeed I might have called exactly the same thing if I were South playing with the agreements we've got. I acknowledge it is close. I acknowledge that some others might disagree.

 

Very strange agreements. Partner has passed with a hand that some would open with a weak NT, and is below invitational strength? It sounds like your disclosure on a lot more auctions might be incorrect. Playing 2♦ as strong, by the way, just what kind of hand does a passed partner need in order to bid it? It doesn't seem as if there is one.

 

Just noticed that this question was asked before, but the answer is not really satisfactory. Changing the ♣9 to the J produces anyone's weak NT.

 

1NT and 2NT would have been natural, but tending to deny a diamond fit. Since our 1♦ opener guarantees 4, they are - well - possible I suppose. But the same question arises - does South want to think of her hand as invitational or not - and you get the same close decision.

 

If close means not in the same universe, then yes.

 

2♥ would have suggested a 5 card suit.

Sorry, meant 2♠.

[mrdct]

I'd be surprised if it ever makes much difference to the result if you calculate a weighted result strictly according to the rules compared to coming with a approximation being a "real" bridge score that you can enter into your scoring program.

 

I think I had my earlier datum calculation wrong as the results on the board were: +100, -140, -50, -50, -50, -50, -110. Excluding the top and bottom, gives an average of 60 which by convention would round to -60. On each of the potential outcomes going into the weighted ruling, the datum is unchanged as the substituted score (+100, +110 or -50) will always be an outlier. So the only result affected is the table in question which gets 25% of 4 imps, 50% of 5 imps and 25% of 0 imps for a net of +3.5 imps compared to +4 imps for the table result and +4 imps if scored up as +70. So in reality it makes very little difference; particularly if the half-imp gets rounded-up which is probably what your other scoring program did.

 

I use scorebridge in my local bridge club and whenever we have a weighted ruling I just come up with a real bridge result as close as possible to that ruling and run with that, but I guess I better check with my National Authority now to see if that's kosher as we may be rendering our sessions ineligible for masterpoints or some other calamitous outcome by not doing it strictly by the book.

 

I think far from being a "complete waste of everyone's time", this thread has highlighted a serious practical problem with issuing weighted rulings in club duplicates where scoring programs simply can't cope with it.

[Vampyr]

I think far from being a "complete waste of everyone's time", this thread has highlighted a serious practical problem with issuing weighted rulings in club duplicates where scoring programs simply can't cope with it.

 

Perhaps. But the solution seems to be to use a scoring program that can cope with it.

[mrdct]

Perhaps. But the solution seems to be to use a scoring program that can cope with it.

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon. At my local club we find that the seemless integration between scorebridge, bridgepads, bridgewebs and the ABF masterpoint centre just make everything a breeze. It rarely takes any more than 30 seconds at the end of the session to attach the hand record file, upload the webpage and email everyone in the session - probably less than 10 clicks - and then at month end the masterpoints get sent off just as easily and whenever we have a visitor we have a current version of the ABF player database in the system to pick up their ABF number and masterpoint status. My only peeve with scorebridge is the lack of Deep Finese analysis on the travellers.

[mjj29]

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon. At my local club we find that the seemless integration between scorebridge, bridgepads, bridgewebs and the ABF masterpoint centre just make everything a breeze. It rarely takes any more than 30 seconds at the end of the session to attach the hand record file, upload the webpage and email everyone in the session - probably less than 10 clicks - and then at month end the masterpoints get sent off just as easily and whenever we have a visitor we have a current version of the ABF player database in the system to pick up their ABF number and masterpoint status. My only peeve with scorebridge is the lack of Deep Finese analysis on the travellers.

The EBU use Jeff Smith's scorers at all their events, for which the above is also true (although admittedly it does integrate better with bridgemates than bridgepads, I have used it with the latter fine though) - and it copes with weighted rulings properly.

 

In this case doing the weighting 'properly' may not make a significant difference (you shouldn't be rounding them though, I _believe_ fractional IMPs are perfectly fine) - but in other cases it will, so it's always good particularly when explaining on here to get it right.

 

Mike I think has covered all the other salient points admirably.

[billw55]

Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength

There is something in between "invitational" and "weak". It is called "constructive". It is simply wrong to claim that all hands less than invitational strength are weak by definition.

 

I think it is absolutely clear that this is a case of MI. "Weak" simply does not describe this hand in any bridge dictionary.

 

As to the adjustment (if any) - this is trickier, and I won't make an attempt. But lastly,

 

North was, in fact the director for the session

In such a case, the playing director should go out his way to rule against himself, when there is any shred of doubt whatsoever. This is in the interest of club harmony, and the membership's perception of equity from directors and management. I feel strongly that promoting good will in the club is more important than IMPs awarded to one pair, in one session. If you cheerfully rule against yourself, then at worst the incident is quickly forgotten, and at best you and the club gain lasting respect for your standard of ethics. Whereas, stand your ground and you may be perceived as self serving, and the club's reputation may be diminished. I know this is all irrelevant to the laws - but from a practical standpoint, it is the best choice.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that one word explanations of one's agreements can almost never be enough, even if opponents seem to accept them.

[campboy]

I'd be surprised if it ever makes much difference to the result if you calculate a weighted result strictly according to the rules compared to coming with a approximation being a "real" bridge score that you can enter into your scoring program.

At Butler scoring this is probably true. At pairs scoring it is very far from true and could make almost a whole board difference.

 

An example: suppose everyone is making 3NT= for 400. As a result of a ruling you get an adjusted score based on playing in 4♠; this will probably make but could go off. Say you are given 90% of +420 and 10% of -50. Done the right way, that's 90% of a top and 10% of a bottom, so a 90% board. Done the wrong way that is +373 for a total bottom.

 

(At Butler the same example gives -0.1 imps done right or -1 imp done wrong.)

[nige1]

Many players would open on the South hand with another point, so if this hand fits the North-South understanding, then "Weak" without further elucidation is misinformation. On a heart lead, 3D is likely to be defeated one trick and, IMO that is how the director should rule.

[Vampyr]

The EBU use Jeff Smith's scorers at all their events, for which the above is also true (although admittedly it does integrate better with bridgemates than bridgepads, I have used it with the latter fine though) - and it copes with weighted rulings properly.

 

 

Not all of the above is true -- it has Deep Finesse. These days I don't know whether I could manage with a hand record without Deep Finesse -- I spend more energy trying to find Deep Finesse's line than I do at the table :(

 

I do wish the EBU used Deep Finesse on a better level of analysis. At the local club our hand records note how many tricks can be taken by each player in each denomination. This helps to find the line to take/limit overtricks in lower-level contracts.

[Vampyr]

Many players would open on the South hand with another point,

 

I must admit that I would open it as is.

[NickRW]

Butler and weighted scores is complicated if you don't have a scoring program (PairScorer - Jeff Smith http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jasmith/ ) that does it properly because you need to work out the score for each of the assigned results and weight the outcomes. Technically this involves weighting every pairs' score. It's worth downloading PairScorer just to play with the weighted score facility. When the scores are large or extreme they will have quite an effect on the datum especially in small fields.

 

Mike Amos

 

Does anyone actually bother to read what I've written? I tried doing it in PairsScorer - and that plus the combination of Bridgewebs to display the result definitely does not work.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Just noticed that this question was asked before, but the answer is not really satisfactory. Changing the ♣9 to the J produces anyone's weak NT.

 

Well, quite apart from the fact that I don't even play the weak NT with this partner, it doesn't count as an opening in our agreements.

 

Sorry, meant 2♠.

 

Why bother to answer. Nobody appears to be interested in any answer I give anyway.

[Vampyr]

Well, quite apart from the fact that I don't even play the weak NT with this partner, it doesn't count as an opening in our agreements.

 

So what? People who play strong NT aren't forced to pass when they are dealt a weak NT. They open in a suit and then bid NT at the lowest possible level. Surely you've heard of this method?

 

Why bother to answer. Nobody appears to be interested in any answer I give anyway.

 

People are interested, but it really doesn't matter how many ways you try to convince them that your explanation of "weak" was accurate, because it's simply not.

[gordontd]

Weighted rulings are extremely rare, particularly in club duplicates, so I think the benefits of using a scoring program that everyone is happy with far outweigh the odd minor inaccuracy when a weighted ruling crops-up once in a blue moon.

I have a spreadsheet that works out weighted scores for use with Scorebridge if you would like me to email it to you - then you can have the best of both worlds.

[richlp]

Well, put it this way - I've been playing this way and alerting this way for yonks with this and other partners both at this club and elswhere against pretty well all classes of opponents and nobody has so much as queried it before. Indeed one of the other players with whom I play this way saw the South hand and did not think it particularly unreasonable to have responded 3♦.

 

Perhaps some of you come from other places and have different norms???

 

I'll chime in for what little it may be worth.

 

I don't care about the merits of a 3♦ bid on that hand. Your system can define a bid to mean whatever you want it to mean.

 

OTOH, calling a hand weak that is an opening bid for some, a Jack shy of an opening bid for most, and a Queen shy of an opening bid for almost everybody seems to go against the definition of weak for me (and I would speculate for just about every other bridge player I know). You may define it as weak, but doing so reminds of

 

"When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean; neither more, nor less"--Humpty Dumpty to Alice

 

You might as well have been speaking a foreign language for all the shared understanding of the word you had with your opponents.

[lamford]

I agree there is misinformation - "weak" will be interpreted by most as pre-emptive here, perhaps less than six points with four or more diamonds.

 

If it was described correctly, East might bid again, and he might double, or West might bid 3♠. If East knows South's hand could be this good, he may well make 3♠. I guess he got the spades wrong after the MI.

 

It is going to be tough to decide the weightings, as 3♦ could well go off - I don't even think it is normal to get the trumps right, as the double finesse looks worse than playing trumps from the top even allowing for spade length with East.

 

If I had to guess, I would give East-West 35% of 3♠=, 15% of 3♠-1, 35% of 3♦-1(NS) and 15% of 3♦=(NS).

[Vampyr]

Nick, I hope you have gathered from this discussion that your explanation will seriously mislead opponents, and that it is, incidentally, contrary to regulations. Instead of insisting that you are in the right, you might want to try to formulate a more helpful explanation of this bid. For example:

"Shows 4+ diamonds, 6-11 HCP if balanced, 3-9 if unbalanced". I do not think anyone will find fault with this.

[bluejak]

Well, I was, in fact, the North player. South had really only two choices, 2♦ which would have been inv+ and forcing to 2NT/3♦ at least and 3♦, not inv, could be very weak. Opposite a third seat opener, though it is a close call between the two, I was not dissatisfied with my partner's judgement.

Your judgement is, of course, not in question. If you want to play this as a 3♦ bid so be it. But that is not the way other people play it, so you are creating MI by describing it as weak. Incidentally, does that mean you need a full opening bid to bid 2♦ after a pass? <puzzled>

 

Well, clearly you think the same way as East did. My understanding and that of my partner and that of another poster was that '"Weak" hands are assumed to be below invitational strength' and this is considered by us to be below invitational strength - just.

But others don't - and it is their view that matters, since they are the ones trying to understand your methods. In most people's view 11 HCP is invitational, especially with well placed spades. Typically, 2♦ shows 10-12, 3♦ 5-9.

 

Someone with more knowledge of the laws than me will know if the non-offending side is allowed to lead a heart all the time, for a 100% weighting for 3♦ down 1. On a heart lead it is far from clear to *cough* double hook the diamonds - personally I would just play them from the top.

When adjusting you decide what you think might have happened, considering all th possibilities. Do you believe that a heart would be led over 90% of the time? If so, then yes, a weighting may consider it would be led all the time. I cannot see it myself.

 

Anyway, weighted results don't seem to be compatible with Scorebridge - eugh - it seems that to get this scored right will waste another hour putting it all into Pairs Scorer - assuming that will do it either.

Perhaps it is time you invested in Jeff Smith's scorers. They are free and do weighted scores.

 

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

The basic problem with wrong rulings is that they are wrong. Sure you could make something up, but really you should do it properly.

 

You calculate the imps first, then apply the weighting. If you have to use a poor scoring program, ok, but the calculation should take a couple of minutes and then you put it in manually.

 

So the upshot seems to be that this has been a complete waste of everyone's time and that weighted scores are something that appears in a rule book which are obviously so little used in practice as to have been effectively ignored by the software developers and are, in fact, unusable in the real world.

I am not convinced that giving correct rulings is a waste of time, and certainly I see little point in posting to this forum if we are not going to bother with correct answers.

 

As to software developers, the Scorebridge man tends not to listen to what he is told, true, but others do, and I really think more people should use Jeff Smith.

 

It seems clear to me that we have a vicious circle here. Most adjustments should be weighted, but inexperienced TDs are unlikely to do it properly when software are makes it difficult for them. So it is important that good software is obtained.

 

Even here, we have many threads - one I have replied to recently - where people have various views as to what might have happened but do not suggest weighting. Weighting is the norm outside North America and TDs need to learn this - and they should tell software developers so - or just get Jeff Smith!

 

:ph34r:

 

My latest version of MultiQuote: I am writing this on the New Zealand forum then transferring it!

[aguahombre]

Only comment here is a suggestion for wording the disclosure. Whether South decided to operate or misbid or whatever was up to South.

 

We word the explanation as "not inviting game, but 6+ in support of diamonds".