Is this a suitable case for a weighted ruling?

[WellSpyder]

Obviously the question relates to a jurisdiction where weighted rulings are used, such as the EBU. As I understand it, there are some situations in which weighted rulings giving a percentage of one result and a percentage of another can be given, eg UI or MI cases. And there are cases where weighted rulings aren't given, eg a disputed claim. Which category does this fall into? [hv=pc=n&s=sk7haq98dkj6caj62&n=sa2hjt76dq5ckt953]133|200[/hv]

South is in 6♣ after a not very impressive bidding sequence. West leads ♦A and another. In dummy with ♦Q, declarer leads ♣10. East hesitates (agreed later by West), and then plays low with what appears to be a slight shrug. Declarer plays low from hand, and loses to ♣Q in the West hand. The ♥ finesse succeeds, so 6♣ goes one off.

 

When it turns out that East started with a singleton ♣, declarer asks for a ruling (as indeed, I guess he might have done if East had started with a small doubleton). Declarer says that he hadn't yet decided how to play the ♣ suit, but he certainly wouldn't have finessed on the first round without the hesitation, and he might have decided that the A lead made West a favourite to hold the trump Q. If you decide as TD that it is right in principle to adjust the score, do you need to decide what the probability of declarer getting the trumps right without the hesitation would have been and assign a weighted score?

[lamford]

You adjust for the damage (as in all "could have cheated known" cases), with the benefit of the doubt going to the NOS. I presume if South had risen with the ace of clubs and continued with the jack of clubs, West would have played low with a slight shrug, and my estimate would be that declarer would get the clubs right half the time. We have to give South more than that, so my first stab is 60% of 6C= and 40% of 6C-1. I would ask some peers as well how they would play the hand on the ace of diamonds lead.

[RMB1]

The general point of when a weighted score is allowed is to look at the wording of the law. If a law talks about awarding/transferring tricks then this is whole number of tricks. If the law talks about adjusting the score (and/or references Law 12C) then we can award a weighted score under Law 12C1(c)

 

In this case, the misleading tempo/shrug is covered by Law 73F which ends "the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)", so a weighted score is allowed.

[pran]

The general point of when a weighted score is allowed is to look at the wording of the law. If a law talks about awarding/transferring tricks then this is whole number of tricks. If the law talks about adjusting the score (and/or references Law 12C) then we can award a weighted score under Law 12C1(c)

 

In this case, the misleading tempo/shrug is covered by Law 73F which ends "the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)", so a weighted score is allowed.

I agree that a weighted score is permissible here, but I would have ruled that declarer makes his contract by finding the Queen.

 

Why?

 

Mainly to teach East a lesson.

 

If the hesitation was accidental then East should (with his play) have said something to that effect. Without any such statement I rule deliberate violation of Law 73D2 and give Declarer the benefit of selecting the successful play 100% of the time.

[helene_t]

Cant we give a split score with 100% of 12 tricks for EW, and some weighted score for NS?

[PeterAlan]

I agree that a weighted score is permissible here, but I would have ruled that declarer makes his contract by finding the Queen.

 

Why?

 

Mainly to teach East a lesson.

That's not what should be determining the weights in the ruling.

 

In the EBU regime (which applied here) the TD can and should apply a disciplinary penalty in addition to adjusting the score if (s)he concludes that the hesitation was deliberately done to mislead (White Book 2013 2.8.3.4(m)). If not done deliberately, then distorting the weighting as a way of warning East is a misuse of the process.

 

I should also declare an interest in this one: I was East's North teammate on this deal (this was a one-off team-up for the evening of two unmatched pairs), and I was unaware until this morning that a ruling was even pending - it was only when I saw the posted scores that I found out what had happened. I believe that the TD's adjustment was appropriate (it accorded with lamford's initial stab, though if WellSpyder is checking (a) he may wish to note that I think the subsequent arithmetic went a bit wonky and I reckon that the adjustment posted was 1.2 IMPs too high in his favour - not that I'm complaining about it; and (b) the format in which the result was posted is misleading - the actual adjustment isn't shown either against the board or elsewhere, but is included in the total IMPs for his team and mine). I would have had no reason to object if a DP had been imposed on top.

[paulg]

My initial thought is that everyone is being overly generous to declarer in giving him a large percentage of making the contract. Leading an ace against an unimpressive sequence is quite normal and I doubt that it conveys significant information about the trump break.

[WellSpyder]

My initial thought is that everyone is being overly generous to declarer in giving him a large percentage of making the contract. Leading an ace against an unimpressive sequence is quite normal and I doubt that it conveys significant information about the trump break.

You may be right - though of course you don't need much information from the lead to tip the odds in this case. Maybe I should be clear, though, that NS were unimpressed with the sequence, mainly no doubt since it got us to a poor slam. I don't think EW had much of a clue that the auction and/or contract might not have been ideal. Certainly neither of them showed any interest in asking about the auction, even though the first 6 bids were all alerted, and I'm sure that wasn't because they already understood the bids....

[pran]

Cant we give a split score with 100% of 12 tricks for EW, and some weighted score for NS?

Sure, adjusted scores need not balance (Law 12C1f).

[lamford]

Mainly to teach East a lesson.

I don't think that is within the remit of a good TD. You should just be restoring equity. You can give a PP if you are sure it was a deliberate hitch.

[pran]

I don't think that is within the remit of a good TD. You should just be restoring equity. You can give a PP if you are sure it was a deliberate hitch.

"Restoring equity" is an obvious principle when there has been an inadvertent irregularity.

 

But I don't want to have players try gaining from an irregularity with the knowledge that they will always be guaranteed equity.

 

When an irregularity for instance affects the expectation of which line of play (among alternatives) will be successful, thereby causing an innocent player to select an unsuccessful line, then I want to "compensate" (for both sides) by adjusting according to a successful alternative line that would at all be probable.

 

Such compensation should never be reduced by weighting on the ground that the innocent player might have chosen a less successful line of play had there been no irregularity.

[VixTD]

"Restoring equity" is an obvious principle when there has been an inadvertent irregularity.

 

But I don't want to have players try gaining from an irregularity with the knowledge that they will always be guaranteed equity.

 

When an irregularity for instance affects the expectation of which line of play (among alternatives) will be successful, thereby causing an innocent player to select an unsuccessful line, then I want to "compensate" (for both sides) by adjusting according to a successful alternative line that would at all be probable.

 

Such compensation should never be reduced by weighting on the ground that the innocent player might have chosen a less successful line of play had there been no irregularity.

This approach gives the non-offenders a huge windfall wildly in excess of the expected result before the irregularity occurred. According to law 12B1:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending 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).

So the TD should work out the likely result had the irregularity not occurred, listen sympathetically to any arguments by the non-offenders about what they would have done and why had East played low in tempo, and invent a score on the basis of the probabilities. There is a tendency to adjust the weighting slightly in favour of the non-offenders to make sure the offenders don't gain, which I think is entirely in keeping with the objective stated above.

 

Peter is right, any punishment or deterrent meeted out to EW should be in the form of a procedural penalty, not in the form of adjustment to the weightings. Although the scores to both sides don't have to balance, I can't see any reason here for awarding non-balancing scores.

[pran]

This approach gives the non-offenders a huge windfall wildly in excess of the expected result before the irregularity occurred.

I wonder if you made up a situation different from what I described?

 

When an offending side with an apparently deliberate irregularity has misled the non-offending side away from a winning line of play which otherwise would absolutely have been reasonable then I shall accept a statement from NOS that they would have selected the winning line had there been no such irregularity.

 

I consider the "right" for OS to have this winning line weighted with an alleged possibility that NOS might have chosen a less favourable line forfeited with their irregularity.

 

And honestly, I cannot see how this is giving the non-offenders a huge windfall wildly in excess of the expected result before the irregularity occurred , I simply refuse to override a reasonable and credible statement from the non-offenders with objections from the offenders.

[blackshoe]

This approach gives the non-offenders a huge windfall wildly in excess of the expected result before the irregularity occurred. According to law 12B1:

 

So the TD should work out the likely result had the irregularity not occurred, listen sympathetically to any arguments by the non-offenders about what they would have done and why had East played low in tempo, and invent a score on the basis of the probabilities. There is a tendency to adjust the weighting slightly in favour of the non-offenders to make sure the offenders don't gain, which I think is entirely in keeping with the objective stated above.

 

Peter is right, any punishment or deterrent meeted out to EW should be in the form of a procedural penalty, not in the form of adjustment to the weightings. Although the scores to both sides don't have to balance, I can't see any reason here for awarding non-balancing scores.

I would say "compute" rather than "invent". You start telling directors to "invent" scores and they'll invent them out of thin air.

[PeterAlan]

I agree that a weighted score is permissible here, but I would have ruled that declarer makes his contract by finding the Queen.

 

Why?

 

Mainly to teach East a lesson.

 

If the hesitation was accidental then East should (with his play) have said something to that effect. Without any such statement I rule deliberate violation of Law 73D2 and give Declarer the benefit of selecting the successful play 100% of the time.

"Restoring equity" is an obvious principle when there has been an inadvertent irregularity.

 

But I don't want to have players try gaining from an irregularity with the knowledge that they will always be guaranteed equity.

 

When an irregularity for instance affects the expectation of which line of play (among alternatives) will be successful, thereby causing an innocent player to select an unsuccessful line, then I want to "compensate" (for both sides) by adjusting according to a successful alternative line that would at all be probable.

 

Such compensation should never be reduced by weighting on the ground that the innocent player might have chosen a less successful line of play had there been no irregularity.

Can we not instead start by seeing what the Laws and the Regulations say, and by trying to apply those, instead of pursuing personal agenda?

 

First, perhaps it's appropriate to remind ourselves of what we should be trying to achieve:

 

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

 

1. 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. ...

This does not appear to include teaching East a lesson.

 

Second, under the 2007 Laws the weighted score approach (Law 12C1(c)) to adjusted scores became the norm with the older "most favourable / most unfavourable" approach relegated to an alternative (Law 12C1(e)) which a Regulating Authority may in its discretion decide to adopt in its place:

 

[/i]c)']

(c) 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.

(e) 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.

The EBU (the Regulating Authority in this case) has decided it will use the weighted score approach, and eschew the option to revert to the 12C1(e) version. It does not seem appropriate to me to try and subvert this decision by the back door.

 

Sure, adjusted scores need not balance (Law 12C1f).

True, but the circumstances in which adjusted scores that do not balance arise are covered in the White Book 2013 (particularly 4.1.1.3 & 4.1.1.5), and do not include the circumstances in question; they are summarised at the end of 4.1.1.5 thus:

 

It is not normal to have an adjusted score that is both split and weighted except in these three situations, i.e. when the non-offenders get part of their redress reduced [essentially SEWOG], when both sides are treated as non-offending, and when both sides are treated as offending.

I have seen nothing, Pran, in what you have posted that convinces me that there is any justification for departing from the standard weighted score approach, supplemented, where there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead, by a Disciplinary (not Procedural) Penalty. We have a perfectly well-established process; why do you regard it as appropriate to subvert it?

 

Finally, in this particular case I understand that the elderly East has recently undergone a medical event that may have contributed to a momentary lack of concentration and to the unfortunate tempo etc. This in no way diminishes N/S's rights to redress, but it's as well to bear such possibilities in mind before starting on the re-education.

[Cascade]

I agree that a weighted score is permissible here, but I would have ruled that declarer makes his contract by finding the Queen.

 

Why?

 

Mainly to teach East a lesson.

 

If the hesitation was accidental then East should (with his play) have said something to that effect. Without any such statement I rule deliberate violation of Law 73D2 and give Declarer the benefit of selecting the successful play 100% of the time.

 

Disagree saying something is an illegal communication.

[pran]

Finally, in this particular case I understand that the elderly East has recently undergone a medical event that may have contributed to a momentary lack of concentration and to the unfortunate tempo etc. This in no way diminishes N/S's rights to redress, but it's as well to bear such possibilities in mind before starting on the re-education.

Introducing new "facts" not in evidence is a popular method for upsetting any case.

[pran]

If the hesitation was accidental then East should (with his play) have said something to that effect. Without any such statement I rule deliberate violation of Law 73D2 and give Declarer the benefit of selecting the successful play 100% of the time.

Disagree saying something is an illegal communication.

In Norway we recommend players who accidentally delay their action without anything to think about to just say: "Sorry, I had nothing to think about" or words to similar effect. I don't see how that can be illegal in any way?

(Partner may of course not draw any inference from this remark other than that the pause was inadvertent.)

[PeterAlan]

Introducing new "facts" not in evidence is a popular method for upsetting any case.

It played no part in the general argument I was advancing, which is precisely why I did not include it there and, when I did introduce it, added the words "in this particular case". You're playing the man, not the ball, here, and it doesn't stand up.

[pran]

Introducing new "facts" not in evidence is a popular method for upsetting any case.

It played no part in the general argument I was advancing, which is precisely why I did not include it there and, when I did introduce it, added the words "in this particular case". You're playing the man, not the ball, here, and it doesn't stand up.

In the special case you turned this into it certainly affects the case and how the "offender" is considered.

[nige1]

IMO, Pran is right to adjust to 6♣=. (Whether to weight scores seems to be at the discretion of the director).

 

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate.

 

Much better if the rules were changed to include an element of deterrence in the basic rules, themselves, without stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

[PeterAlan]

IMO, Pran is right to adjust to 6♣=. (Weighting scores or not is at the discretion of the director).

 

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate.

 

Much better to include an element of deterrence into the basic rules, themselves, without the stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

However much better it might or might not be, those aren't the rules we have at the moment: my point is that they are what we should be following, not what we might like them to be. The discretion of the Director should be exercised in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Preface ("They [the Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.") and 12B1 (already cited), not in pursuit of some other agenda.

[pran]

IMO, Pran is right to adjust to 6♣=. (Whether to weight scores seems to be at the discretion of the director).

 

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate.

 

Much better if the rules were changed to include an element of deterrence in the basic rules, themselves, without stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

 

However much better it might or might not be, those aren't the rules we have at the moment: my point is that they are what we should be following, not what we might like them to be. The discretion of the Director should be exercised in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Preface ("They [the Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.") and 12B1 (already cited), not in pursuit of some other agenda.

 

And when I adjust to 6♣= it is because I consider that result quite likely when I ignore any line of play that could be suggested by the irregularity and also take into account the possible purpose(s) with that irregularity.

 

I do not accept any allegation that my ruling here is in conflict with Law 12, on the contrary I consider my ruling fully in accordance with Law 12 after a deliberate violation of Law 73D2.

[VixTD]

I would say "compute" rather than "invent". You start telling directors to "invent" scores and they'll invent them out of thin air.

"Inventing" is exactly what they are doing. They are making up a score which hitherto didn't exist for these pairs. That it is also a product of some computation, logical reasoning and guesswork doesn't make it any less an invention.

[pran]

I would say "compute" rather than "invent". You start telling directors to "invent" scores and they'll invent them out of thin air.

"Inventing" is exactly what they are doing. They are making up a score which hitherto didn't exist for these pairs. That it is also a product of some computation, logical reasoning and guesswork doesn't make it any less an invention.

Nonsense.

 

"Weighted average" is a notion that at some time was invented in statistics. It has been adopted in the laws of bridge as "weighted score".

 

But weighted averages and weighted scores are calculated (or computed) not invented.