Can you help the director out here?

[Aardv]

Repeating myself, I think the intention of both Law 50E and the WBFLC is plain: you ARE allowed to mitigate the effect of the penalty card, you are NOT allowed to defend better than you would have done had the card never become a penalty card.

 

The WBFLC minute saying "may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace" is intended to give an example of that - they mean that you're not obliged to crash honours with partner's penalty card. However, if partner's penalty card turns out to be a singleton honour which you might have crashed even if it weren't a penalty card, or if the honour underlead advantageously unblocks the suit (cashing out KQx opposite Ax for example) the director may adjust under 50E3.

[campboy]

The fact that partner wanted to lead the ♥3 is unauthorized also after the ♥3 has ceased to be a penalty card. So you are not allowed to cash the Ace if that has become attractive by partner's desire to lead the ♥3!

I agree completely that if cashing the ace of hearts is suggested by the UI that partner attempted to lead the suit, you may not do so (if there is an LA). However, in this case I don't think it is suggested by that. Whether or not partner wanted to lead hearts, I still want to give him a diamond ruff. The only thing that stops me is the fact that he won't be allowed to ruff, which I believe is AI.

[Trinidad]

Unless my memory fails me there is a rule that what might happen at other tables shall not influence the ruling on an irregularity.

An artificial adjusted score, by definition, takes the results at other tables into account.

 

An adjusted score is supposed to be the score that would have been achieved had the irregularity (in this case: the TD error) not occurred.

 

That may be difficult to determine, but it is not difficult to set limitations.

 

Given that the auction was over and 4 tricks had been played (split 2-2), possible scores varied from 2♠+3 to 2♠-6, for a total of 9 possible scores. Of those 9 possible scores, most are impossible for the purpose of an AS: they require revokes or players throwing away obvious tricks.

 

In practice, there is only one question to answer: Will NS get a diamond ruff or won't they? This limits the possible outcomes to 2♠-1 (+50 NS) and 2♠= (-110 NS). VixTD gave NS 100% diamond ruff (+50 NS) and EW 100% no diamond ruff (+110 EW), giving both sides all the benefit of any possible doubt. Both sides got the best result they could possibly achieve.

 

These are concrete, real scores and they will have a corresponding percentage (whether you like it or not). Similarly, your 60% NS and 60% EW will have a corresponding table result. What if these were the percentages corresponding to +100 (3♠-2) and +90 (1NT c)? You will have given NS a better score than they could have ever achieved and EW a worse score than they could have ever achieved.

 

Rik

[campboy]

The score might be adjusted under Law 23 or 50E3 some other such fatuity (it should be noted in passing that given Law 23, Law 50E3 is superfluous).

No, it really isn't. Law 23 requires that the player who committed the irregularity could have known that it could well damage NOS. Law 50E3 doesn't: if information from the penalty card causes damage you adjust, whether this could have been foreseen or not.

[pran]

An artificial adjusted score, by definition, takes the results at other tables into account.

[...]

WHAT ? ? ? ?

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

So it depends only on the responsibility for the irregularity, not on anything that happened or could happen at any other table.

(It may, however, be modified according to the session average for either of the involved contestants.)

[Vampyr]

I agree completely that if cashing the ace of hearts is suggested by the UI that partner attempted to lead the suit, you may not do so (if there is an LA). However, in this case I don't think it is suggested by that. Whether or not partner wanted to lead hearts, I still want to give him a diamond ruff. The only thing that stops me is the fact that he won't be allowed to ruff, which I believe is AI.

 

The fact that partner attempted to lead a heart may it make cashing the ace of hearts more attractive, but the fact that the card is a MPC does.

 

I don't see how the fact that partner will not be able to ruff is AI.

[Trinidad]

WHAT ? ? ? ?

Have you ever tried to calculate a percentage without using scores from other tables?

 

So, any score in percentages takes the results at other tables into account. The same is true for any score in IMPs (or Cross-IMPs).

 

The law that you quote has an important condition: "When no result can be obtained". In this case, and all cases where the play has started, a result can be obtained. It may be a complicated weighted result, but not an impossible result.

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that EW hadn't been playing 2♠, but were in 7♥XX played by West. In addition, the play hadn't gone relatively normal. Because West is annoyed with partner's bidding, and since he knows it will be a bottom, no matter what he does, West throws away high cards from his hand and dummy. In trick 7, NS end up with a penalty card and the TD makes his error. You think it is difficult to decide whether 7♥XX will be down 9, 10 or 11 tricks. (Not that it matters, all results lead to 100% for NS.)

 

So, now you give both sides 60%? When NS would have scored 100% without the TD error and EW would have scored 0%?

 

Rik

[pran]

Have you ever tried to calculate a percentage without using scores from other tables?

 

So, any score in percentages takes the results at other tables into account. The same is true for any score in IMPs (or Cross-IMPs).

 

The law that you quote has an important condition: "When no result can be obtained". In this case, and all cases where the play has started, a result can be obtained. It may be a complicated weighted result, but not an impossible result.

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that EW hadn't been playing 2♠, but were in 7♥XX played by West. In addition, the play hadn't gone relatively normal. Because West is annoyed with partner's bidding, and since he knows it will be a bottom, no matter what he does, West throws away high cards from his hand and dummy. In trick 7, NS end up with a penalty card and the TD makes his error. You think it is difficult to decide whether 7♥XX will be down 9, 10 or 11 tricks. (Not that it matters, all results lead to 100% for NS.)

 

So, now you give both sides 60%? When NS would have scored 100% without the TD error and EW would have scored 0%?

 

Rik

 

I cannot believe that you are serious!

 

Maybe you need to know the results at the other tables in order to calculate respectively 40%, 50% and 60% of a top score on the Board - I do not.

[blackshoe]

An artificial adjusted score, by definition, takes the results at other tables into account.

Does it? How so? And how does that contradict the principle Sven mentioned?

[barmar]

The fact that partner attempted to lead a heart may it make cashing the ace of hearts more attractive, but the fact that the card is a MPC does.

 

I don't see how the fact that partner will not be able to ruff is AI.

Is there a missing "not" somewhere in the first sentence? Either before "make" (instead of "it") or after "does".

[Vampyr]

Is there a missing "not" somewhere in the first sentence? Either before "make" (instead of "it") or after "does".

 

Yeah, instead of "it". I always have to be careful with my iPad because it makes up words.

[Trinidad]

I cannot believe that you are serious!

 

Maybe you need to know the results at the other tables in order to calculate respectively 40%, 50% and 60% of a top score on the Board - I do not.

Ok, NS make 4♥, vul with an overtrick. How many percent do they get for that?

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Ok, NS make 4♥, vul with an overtrick. How many percent do they get for that?

 

Rik

They don't get an artificial adjusted score when an actual score was obtained at the table. Artificial adjusted scores don't depend on what the other tables did; they depend on the degree of fault of the pairs at the table.

[gordontd]

Have you ever tried to calculate a percentage without using scores from other tables?

Sure. I've never used the scores from another table when awarding an artificial adjusted score. All we need to know to calculate a percentage is the number of results per board.

[Trinidad]

The point behind artificial adjusted scores and non artificial adjusted scores:

 

Before there is any significant action on the board, all scores are possible (or more correctly, just as likely as at any other table). NS might obtain 100% or 33% or 24%. If some irregularity occurs that makes any further play impossible, it is perfectly fine to come up with an artificial adjusted score.

 

If there has been significant action on the board, e.g. because the auction is over and a contract has been reached, the number of possible table results is limited. After the auction is over, there are at most 14 possible outcomes (and usually much less realistic outcomes). It is entirely possible that NS will never be able to score 60%, or even 30%, e.g. because they missed an obvious game.

 

The object of the laws is to restore equity after an irregularity: We try to assign a score that would have been obtained if the irregularity had not occurred. That means that you don't give NS 60% if without the irregularity they would have been able to achieve a score between 0 and 30%. Similarly, you don't give EW 60% if they were headed for a score between 70 and 100%. That is not restoring equity.

 

That is why you should not give artificial adjusted scores when there has been significant action on the board and the number of possible results are limited. In the case of this thread, there are only two results that are realistically possible: 2♠c and 2♠-1. Then you should base your AS on those two possible outcomes and not give an AAS of 60-60 which has nothing to do with restoring equity. 60% might correspond to a score of 4♠ E -3 or 1NT S c. Is that the AS you want to give?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

You are a chemistry teacher and you have three students. It is your job to test them and give them a grade for their report card at the end of the term. You have come up with 8 tests that they need to take.

 

Case 1

Unfortunately, the first one is a lab test and one of the three students blunders and blows up the building. You cannot give any tests anymore. What grades are you going to hand out?

 

Case 2

Student A has aced the first 7 tests with flying colors. He is headed for a straight A, as long as he doesn't blow up anything. Student B has had major trouble getting sufficient grades, he might pass or he might not. Student C is hopeless. He has no chance whatsoever. The last test is a lab test and student C (who else) blows up the building. What grades are you going to hand out?

 

Answers:

Case 1: the student who blew up the building won't pass. The other two get the benefit of the doubt and will get a passing grade: a B.

 

Case 2: Student C will not pass. Student B gets the benefit of the doubt and gets a B. Student A also gets the benefit of the doubt and will get an A. Except if the chemistry teacher is Pran, then student A and B both will get a B, because the possible outcomes of the final grade are "numerous".

 

Rik

[gordontd]

Rik,

 

I think you earlier confused "when to give an artificial adjusted score" with "how to give an artificial adjusted score".

[Trinidad]

Rik,

 

I think you earlier confused "when to give an artificial adjusted score" with "how to give an artificial adjusted score".

Ok, suppose in this case that there would be 5 different possible outcomes:

2♠-2 (+100)

2♠-1 (+50)

2♠= (-110)

2♠+1 (-140)

2♠+2 (-170)

 

Then I don't have any problem with a TD who:

• 
   
  
• looks at the score sheet
  
• sees that the possible results for NS vary from 10 (2♠+2, -170) to 50% (2♠-2, +100) and for EW from 50 to 90%
  
• decides to give NS 40% and EW 80%, giving them both some benefit of the doubt (since "on average" they would get 30% and 70%).
  

I am certainly not advocating that the TD starts to calculate (e.g.):

   MP for +100 x 1/16

   MP for +50 x 4/16

   MP for -110 x 6/16

   MP for -140 x 4/16

   MP for -170 x 1/16

   Total: MP for AS

 

So, I am not against an artificial AS. I am against the automatic 60%-60% since these might be results that would have been impossible without the irregularity.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

 

I am certainly not advocating that the TD starts to calculate (e.g.):

   MP for +100 x 1/16

   MP for +50 x 4/16

   MP for -110 x 6/16

   MP for -140 x 4/16

   MP for -170 x 1/16

   Total: MP for AS

Isn't this exactly how one would calculate a weighted assigned adjusted score?

 

Deleted. (I am starting to suffer from double posting syndrome.)

I deleted two of these. Generally, I will delete any post consisting of the word "delete[d]" simply to avoid cluttering up the thread. If the poster makes additional comments, I have to decide whether to keep that post. Usually, I won't.

[Trinidad]

I am certainly not advocating that the TD starts to calculate (e.g.):

   MP for +100 x 1/16

   MP for +50 x 4/16

   MP for -110 x 6/16

   MP for -140 x 4/16

   MP for -170 x 1/16

   Total: MP for AS

 

Isn't this exactly how one would calculate a weighted assigned adjusted score?

Pretty much, except that I made an assumption of the weighting (1:4:6:4:1 /16). I think that if the outcomes start to be "too numerous" then it doesn't make much sense to assign a weighted score. The weighting factors are getting pretty arbitrary. The factors that I came up with at least had some (also arbitrary) reasoning behind them, but often one sees weighting factors that seem to simply be random guesses. These guesses can still be reasonably accurate when there are two or three possible outcomes, but when you get to five it starts to be silly.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

Under the previous law (Law 12C3:1997 "vary an adjusted score to do equity"), there were a variety of ways of calculating the adjusted score. My local experience was weighting the scores for various results on the board, as now envisaged (if not explicit) in Law 12C1(c):2007. But we did see European appeals committees just give a match-point or IMP score - sometimes the scribe would "reverse engineer" the weightings of two possible outcomes from the adjusted score.

 

What Rik is doing appears to be the second approach above: assigning a score which does equity without worrying about the precise weightings. I think this a still a ruling under Law 12C1(c) (not Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2) and is therefore an assigned adjusted score (not an artificial adjusted score).

[pran]

Under the previous law (Law 12C3:1997 "vary an adjusted score to do equity"), there were a variety of ways of calculating the adjusted score. My local experience was weighting the scores for various results on the board, as now envisaged (if not explicit) in Law 12C1(c):2007. But we did see European appeals committees just give a match-point or IMP score - sometimes the scribe would "reverse engineer" the weightings of two possible outcomes from the adjusted score.

 

What Rik is doing appears to be the second approach above: assigning a score which does equity without worrying about the precise weightings. I think this a still a ruling under Law 12C1(c) (not Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2) and is therefore an assigned adjusted score (not an artificial adjusted score).

 

Precisely.

[Trinidad]

What Rik is doing appears to be the second approach above: assigning a score which does equity without worrying about the precise weightings. I think this a still a ruling under Law 12C1(c) (not Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2) and is therefore an assigned adjusted score (not an artificial adjusted score).

True, but what reason should there be to invoke Law 12C2 when the condition for it is not fulfilled: "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained"? (Note that this condition comes after listing all the possibilities of assigning an AS in law 12C1, obviously meaning that if all the other ways to assign an AS won't work then -and only then- you apply Law 12C2.)

 

In this case there are 2 possible outcomes: 2♠-1 and 2♠c. You simply apply Law 12C1c or, if necessary, 12C1d and you have your AS. There is no need to use the "If all else fails" method of law 12C2.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

You are a chemistry teacher and you have three students. It is your job to test them and give them a grade for their report card at the end of the term. You have come up with 8 tests that they need to take.

 

Case 1

Unfortunately, the first one is a lab test and one of the three students blunders and blows up the building. You cannot give any tests anymore. What grades are you going to hand out?

 

Case 2

Student A has aced the first 7 tests with flying colors. He is headed for a straight A, as long as he doesn't blow up anything. Student B has had major trouble getting sufficient grades, he might pass or he might not. Student C is hopeless. He has no chance whatsoever. The last test is a lab test and student C (who else) blows up the building. What grades are you going to hand out?

 

Answers:

Case 1: the student who blew up the building won't pass. The other two get the benefit of the doubt and will get a passing grade: a B.

 

Case 2: Student C will not pass. Student B gets the benefit of the doubt and gets a B. Student A also gets the benefit of the doubt and will get an A. Except if the chemistry teacher is Pran, then student A and B both will get a B, because the possible outcomes of the final grade are "numerous".

I don't like your choice of analogy. Students should only pass assessments if they can demonstrate competence and ability. If they are unable to demonstrate such competence (whether through their own fault or not) they should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I work as a university lecturer and I have to be constantly on my guard against this sort of thinking, that if a student has been unable to take a test because, for instance, a university administrator told them the wrong exam date, they should be paid compensation in the form of academic credit.

 

You wouldn't dream of doing this for a driving test or pilot's licence, or a licence to practise medicine.

[blackshoe]

It occurred to me when I first read Rik's analogy that the question what grades to award is probably moot, because the students are probably dead. B-)