Portland Pairs 1

[VixTD]

I didn't avoid the question of whether it was legal to award a weighted score; I didn't realise it was being asked. Yes it is. You don't know what would have happened without the irregularity, but it might have been either of those two scores, so it should be normal to weight.

Well, I definitely asked. I was told by the person I consulted about the ruling (another EBU TD who was playing in the event) that there was a strong body of opinion among senior EBU TDs that if I believe South would have bid 4♥ with the correct explanation then it's inappropriate to give a weighted score just because I think the link between the misinformation and the action chosen is tenuous. (It's possible I misunderstood this.)

 

The question is how likely a player who passed with the incorrect information is to bid 4♥ with correct information. So the people who matter in the poll are people who would pass (or who weren't sure what they'd do) with incorrect information. What proportion of them were bidding with correct information?

I didn't find enough players who would pass with the given information, so I think this would be a fruitless pursuit. We've had this discussion before, and defining "peers" as players who would act in an identical way in every situation is just impractical.

[jallerton]

 

I asked EW whether they would have taken further action over 4♥ and they were adamant that they would not have done.

 

Excellent work. I like your ruling better now!

 

Well, I definitely asked. I was told by the person I consulted about the ruling (another EBU TD who was playing in the event) that there was a strong body of opinion among senior EBU TDs that if I believe South would have bid 4♥ with the correct explanation then it's inappropriate to give a weighted score just because I think the link between the misinformation and the action chosen is tenuous. (It's possible I misunderstood this.)

 

As you know, your adjusted score is based on what you judge would have happened absent the infraction. So if you consider that South would always bid 4♥ given correct information, you don't give any weighting to South doing anything else, even if you believe that South made a bad call after the actual explanation given at the table.

 

However, there will be times when the action taken at the table after the (mis)explanation supplied leads you to doubt whether the successful alternative action would have been found had the correction explanation been given. Then a weighted adjustment (or no adjustment at all) would be appropriate.

[c_corgi]

Is there really MI here?

 

It seems to me that "no agreement" differs little from "natural and forcing". If I were to sit opposite any of you with no agreement and I bid 3D to play, wouldn't you think I was mad? Unless East might know of a tendency for West to make surprising interpretations of undiscussed sequences it looks like a clear misbid rather than MI.

 

If there is damage, South would have bid differently over "no agreement" than over "natural and forcing". If that is the case, to explain "no agreement" rather than "natural and forcing" would be exploiting this uncertainty. Surely a clear explanation of an implied understanding is better than a confusing and vague cop-out.

 

I think West should have corrected the explanation as a matter of good form, but I am not sure that he is legally obliged to do so unless he still thought it might be wrong.

[campboy]

I didn't find enough players who would pass with the given information, so I think this would be a fruitless pursuit. We've had this discussion before, and defining "peers" as players who would act in an identical way in every situation is just impractical.

The point is, though, that finding lots of players who would pass with or without the MI doesn't help you. If the MI doesn't make a difference for any of South's "peers", what makes you think it made a difference for South?