Is Pass an LA?

[Trinidad]

That article is the most pitiful excuse for incompetent rulings I have ever read.

Answering his questions and pointing out where his reasoning is flawed will leave a better impression.

 

This is the second time in this thread - on two different subjects - where your response to a logical reasoning is: "I am right because my intuition/experience/gut feeling tells me so and no logical reasoning can change that." One of my kids does that too, but not twice in one thread.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

If you produce a pointless argument to your kid, which I expect you do not, then I expect he would be justified.

 

I am sorry, but we have a Law on how to proceed, and I really think that the argument that it is too much work to follow it needs no detailed rebuttal.

[mrdct]

If you produce a pointless argument to your kid, which I expect you do not, then I expect he would be justified.

 

I am sorry, but we have a Law on how to proceed, and I really think that the argument that it is too much work to follow it needs no detailed rebuttal.

That's an over-simplification of my argument. Let me bullet point it to make it easier to follow:

 

• Weighted scores are a "may" requirement under the laws so are at the discretion of the TD;
  
• A TD would take a number of factors into account in deciding whether or not to issue a weighted score (the existance of a number of potential results for which probabilities can be reasonably estimated would obviously be the first one of those factors; but the orderly running of his event would also be taken into account);
  
• Weighted scores are not compatible with most of the real-time or near-real-time scoring systems used in high profile events (I'd be happy to see some examples if that's not the case); and
  
• Weighted scores are rarely, if ever, used at WBF events (I'd be happy to see some examples if they exist).
  

What bluejak seems to be doing is rewriting Law 16C1c which reads:

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

to read:

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, where there are a number of potential results for which the probabilities can be reasonably estimated, an assigned adjusted score should be weighted to reflect the probabilities of those potential results.

[blackshoe]

The capability of the scoring system to provide "instant gratification" to players who want to know their results RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT notwithstanding, a minute or two delay in computing and providing those results isn't going to kill anyone or cause the scoring program to explode. So I think your "not compatible with the scoring system" point is a nonsense.

 

I'm also not at all sure, as I've said before in this thread, that the discussion of "may", etc. in the Introduction to the laws is intended to apply to anyone other than the players. If the law says a TD "must" do something, and he doesn't, does he get a procedural penalty?

[jallerton]

That's an over-simplification of my argument. Let me bullet point it to make it easier to follow:

 

• Weighted scores are a "may" requirement under the laws so are at the discretion of the TD;
  
• A TD would take a number of factors into account in deciding whether or not to issue a weighted score (the existance of a number of potential results for which probabilities can be reasonably estimated would obviously be the first one of those factors; but the orderly running of his event would also be taken into account);
  
• Weighted scores are not compatible with most of the real-time or near-real-time scoring systems used in high profile events (I'd be happy to see some examples if that's not the case); and
  
• Weighted scores are rarely, if ever, used at WBF events (I'd be happy to see some examples if they exist).
  

What bluejak seems to be doing is rewriting Law 16C1c which reads:

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

 

I can't find a subsection [c] within Law 16C1, so you're probably right that such a law is not used in WBF events.

 

It looks as though you are referring to Law 12C1c, but I think you are incorrect to look at that Law in isolation. You need to read Law 12B1 first to put this into context.

 

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred but see C1(b).

 

In essence, Law 12B1 tells us when to adjust. Law 12C tells us how to adjust.

 

Law 12C1e states:

 

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of [c]:

 

(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending 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.

 

In areas (including English and WBF events) where the Regulatory Authority has not opted to use any part of Law 12C1e(i) or (ii), then these cannot be used. The way to redress damage as defined in Law 12B1 is to decide what would or might have happened absent the infraction. If there are several possibilities, the only way to achieve "equity" is to weight the score "to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results" as Law 12C1c explains.

[jallerton]

I red more that once that the danger of losing the match was the reason to pull.

 

So lets look at the numbers:

 

Lets assume that they always double 6 ♥ and will never bid 6♠. If you want to calculate other cases too, do it.

 

If we make 6 ♥ and they make 5 ♠, we will lose 18 imps by passing 5 ♠ and 20 if we pass 5 ♠ XX.

If we make 6♥ and they fail in 5♠, we will lose 15 imps by passing 5 ♠ and 13 if we pass 5 ♠ XX

If we fail by one trick and they make, pasing will lose 11 imps w/o and 15 imps with the XX.

If we fail by two tricks and they make,passing lose lose 8 imps w/o and 14 imps with the XX.

 

If we make 6 ♥ and they fail to make 5 ♠,passing will lose 15 imps at 5 ♠, 13 imps while passing 5 ♠XX.

If we fail one trick and they do to, passing will win 5 imps without the redouble and 11 imps with it.

If we fail two tricks and they one, passing will win 9 imps without the XX but 12 with it.

 

So to bid 6 ♥ over 5 ♠ has a variance between +18 and -9 imps. If we face the same descission after the XX, the possible outcomes are between + 20 and -12 imps. No big deal. And this is true for any given scenario. The descission to bid 6 ♥ is crutial, but it had been crutial before the XX, imp wise the XX did not changed a lot.

 

East already passed 5 ♠ for a reason. He belived that defending 5 ♠ is the winning strategy. Most of us don't share this view. But as East made the descission to pass 5 ♠, he already took the risk to lose the match. If his descission was wrong, he had lost, it is as simple as that. His descission was very important when he had a descission to make over 5 ♠. Now the descission is just a little more important. The difference in total imps is very small- if you lose 32 or 29 imps because of a wrong descission does not make a big difference at all.

 

So you may say, that these are the wrong numbers to compute, you need to decide between -650 and -1200. (11 imps) No sorry, you don't. You need to compare the result of your descission with the one at the other table. So whatever will happen there- whether it is right to sacrifice or not- must be compared with or without the XX. And the XX makes at most a difference of 6 imps.

 

So, for someone for whom a pass of 5 ♠ was not just an LA but the correct bid, the XX simply does not change his imps expectations so much.

But if I am right with this numbers, the "I may lose the match if I pass" argument is simply wrong- at least not convincing enough to disregard pass as a LA.

 

This looks like a very detailed analysis, but you seem to have missed a more simple argument.

 

When one team is 20 IMPs up, a flat board is fine. If West believed (however misguided that belief may be) that the contract in the other room might well be 4♠ or 5♠ undoubled, then defending 5♠ undoubled in her room is ideal, assuming that the same number of tricks will be made in each room.

 

Apparently West told the TD that she would have passed 5♠x if it had not been redoubled (although it's not clear whether she was making this statement in the context of the UI- did she think that passing 5♠x was the correct call, or merely that it was a logical alternative she'd be forced to select after the slow double? Perhaps she reasoned that whilst conceding 5♠x is not ideal, it could still be a flat board or only -5 IMPs if 5♠ undoubled is declared in the other room.

 

However, once 5♠ is redoubled, she knows that the contract in the other room is highly unlikely to be the same and there is virtually certain to be a significant swing. She has an obvious way to reduce this volatility by bidding 6♥.

 

I also find that the vast majority of people that I give the hand to would pull, maybe 12 out of 13 so far. But they would have all bid on the previous round. The problem is that I need to find people that would a) open 1H, b) pass over 5S and c) pass over a double of 5S (without a redouble). They seem as scarce as hen's teeth, but included my team-mate who conceded -850 and would have pulled a redouble!

 

I agree. I'm sure that the TD would have polled people with this bidding style if he'd thought he could have easily found some.

[Fluffy]

Some people here seem to think that on the given bidding, since RHO doubled after hesitating and LHO passed 5♠, redouble is by law totally free from the risk of LHO pulling it.

 

I think this has to be wrong, you cannot make bids based on what a ruling will do on opponents. Redouble must open a tiny window for west to escape, and if there is a hand that wants to escape this hand must be it.

[lalldonn]

Some people here seem to think that on the given bidding, since RHO doubled after hesitating and LHO passed 5♠, redouble is by law totally free from the risk of LHO pulling it.

 

I think this has to be wrong, you cannot make bids based on what a ruling will do on opponents. Redouble must open a tiny window for west to escape, and if there is a hand that wants to escape this hand must be it.

East would still be allowed to pull it (if West passed and didn't force a ruling on his side). So South can't be sure his redouble will end the auction.

 

Of course, even if you were right then it's still different in this case since West admitted she would have passed 5♠ doubled too.

[lamford]

This looks like a very detailed analysis, but you seem to have missed a more simple argument.

 

When one team is 20 IMPs up, a flat board is fine.

EW were 20 IMPs with 8 boards to play, and could not have known what the score was before this board. They actually led by 5. But an even more simple argument is that partner would not have doubled 5S if she thought her side was leading by 20, unless it was definitely going off. There was no suggestion that Double was anything other than penalties.

[bluejak]

You are playing in a major event. There is a ruling at another table in a hesitation case where the only pair that can beat you are the non-offenders. The facts are agreed, the bridge judgement is agreed, the ruling is near automatic. If the obvious weighted score is given, you win the event. If the ruling is done without a weighted score the other pair win the event.

 

The other pair win the event and you ask why a weighted score was not given. Which of the following explanations do you consider adequate:

 

"The Law says the TD "may" give a weighted score. The reason he did not was:

• It was near the end of the day and he wanted to get home
  
• It would make extra work for the scorer
  
• The pair that won were friends of the TD
  
• To save trouble, he only gives weighted scores every second adjustment. This was his eight adjustment and he gives them in odd numbered adjustments
  
• That Law was not put in the Law book for him: it is only for excessively punctilious TDs
  
• We only apply that Law for ACs, and the other pair did not appeal because they were doing poorly"
  

 

:ph34r:

 

I have been looking through the Laws at the use of the word "may". It is often used in things where "the Director may ..." but I have never heard any usage before where whether he does or not depends on how much work it is for him, for the scorer, or whether he feels like it. It is always understood to mean that it depends on his judgement. For example, "the Director may penalise an offender". Sure, he does not have to, but it is surely understood that he decides to or not on a basis of whether it is deserved, not on whether it is extra work for the scorer.