Scoring

[keithhus]

Playing ACOL, Ops failed to open with 13 HCP (mistake, not tactical). Hand was passed out. We scored 0 bottom board, whilst Ops obviously scored top board. How can this be equitable? It has no reflection on either pair's play. Is this not a mis bid? Would it not be fairer to average ? I suppose you're going to tell me life's a bitch and then you die. Appreciate your comments/sympathy.

[gordontd]

Would you also be asking for an average if you had got a top from it, which is more likely?

[1eyedjack]

Next time it happens you get a top.

 

Hopefully it is not a one-board movement.

[mycroft]

It was a misbid. It worked. Just like that time when you forgot the answers to Gerber, answered Blackwood (at the 4 level), and were the only pair not in slam off an ace and a 5-0 split.

 

Bridge is a game of mistakes. Not all mistakes are punished. Some are even rewarded. Just not very many.

[keithhus]

Thank you everyone for your responses, I suppose I'll find sympathy in the dictionary! To be fair, I probably would not have raised the matter if we had not scored 0 (dropped us a few places down the ladder). However that does not change the fact that in my opinion, the scoring is not equitable. No one should benefit to that degree from such a misbid and I would find no solace if it works in my favour next time. I still feel an average would be a better outcome. Thanks again everyone, I'll continue trying to learn from my mistakes.

[blackshoe]

There is, as you seem to be aware, no legal basis for "an average" in this case.

 

Where do you draw the line? "Director, I made a defensive error on boards 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 19. Would you please adjust the score to average for both sides?"

 

The other day, some quarterback threw a pass which was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Should that QB get a do-over?

[barmar]

The scoring system of duplicate bridge makes no attempt to determine whether a good or bad score is "deserved". Sometimes you get a good or bad score through no effort or fault of your own, just because of what the opponents do.

 

How is this not "equity"? If the same thing happens at another table, they get the same scores, that's equity.

[billw55]

Thank you everyone for your responses, I suppose I'll find sympathy in the dictionary! To be fair, I probably would not have raised the matter if we had not scored 0 (dropped us a few places down the ladder). However that does not change the fact that in my opinion, the scoring is not equitable. No one should benefit to that degree from such a misbid and I would find no solace if it works in my favour next time. I still feel an average would be a better outcome. Thanks again everyone, I'll continue trying to learn from my mistakes.

I assure you with absolute certainty, that you have at times made mistakes and gotten a higher score because of them. You just didn't notice, or didn't consider it unfair. All those times you took a 50% finesse when you didn't see the 80% line that was available - but the finesse worked. Or when you bungled your way to a dismal slam, that made on a 10% lie of the cards. And so on.

 

I certainly have done so. I have botched a great many hands over the years. I didn't count how many times I lucked into a good score from it. Most of the time I got what I deserved. But not every time. That's part of the game. I remember a few hands where ops and us offered each other a top several times in one deal, back and forth as if nobody wanted to win.

 

This time, it worked out for the ops. Inevitably, it will again in the future. Don't waste time worrying about it. Next board.

[mycroft]

Sympathy I will give you - in abundance. It's horrible when you zone out for a minute and get a bad score; it's much much worse when they zone out for a minute and get rewarded for it. It truly sucks when you get fixed - especially when you get fixed by the weakest pair in the room that you were expecting to have a 65% round against like all your competitors. I hate it, almost as much as when I don't win because I made one too many stupid mistakes. When we fix the opponents, I don't feel very good either - but I'm not going to give the result back.

 

I've bought more than one beer for my friends with the bad beats (especially when I was the one doing it); and had more than one bought for me. Maybe if we meet we'll do just that.

 

Bridge is a game of mistakes (both good and bad). As a TD, a common argument I get (and a common opinion I hear people having) is "they did something wrong, we deserve a good score." It is my job to have sympathy for them, too, but only to give them what the Law allows.

 

As an example, I was playing in an individual last weekend; the last board of the set was 1♠-x-2♠-3♥; 3♠-p. I had a nice hand, but all my partners play that as strictly competitive. So I passed. Partner meant it as a game try, we should absolutely be in game, everybody else was in game; but the 4-0 break offside meant that we had three trump losers to go along with our outside loser. Clear top, based on just as obvious a misunderstanding as missing an Ace and passing a 13 count - but it counts. And my partner won the event because of it.

[keithhus]

There is, as you seem to be aware, no legal basis for "an average" in this case.

 

Where do you draw the line? "Director, I made a defensive error on boards 3, 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 19. Would you please adjust the score to average for both sides?"

 

The other day, some quarterback threw a pass which was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Should that QB get a do-over?

 

Thank you and everyone else for troubling to respond. However, I am going to keep digging! I am not convinced this is equity; ask the man on the Clapham Omnibus. When a board is not played due to slow play on a previous board(s) an average score is given. The QB analogy is akin to the wrong card being discarded during play. I do not see this as similar to the board being passed out due to a bidding error, resulting in the hand - I.e. Game, not being played. I appreciate mistakes are made during play which affects the scoring and I accept that is part and parcel of the game. However, I still feel these specific circumstances are different and that the laws should allow discretion to award an average score, say if both pairs agree. I appreciate I am inexperienced, and that it's not going to happen, but at the moment, I still feel an average would be a fairer outcome. Thank you all once again, onward and upward (hopefully).

[sfi]

When a board is not played due to slow play on a previous board(s) an average score is given.

 

A passed in board has been played, so the comparison isn't valid. I'm not sure why you want to treat this mistake any differently from the myriad of other mistakes made at the bridge table.

[mycroft]

First, when a board is not played, a range of scores (from Not Played, of dubious legality, to average, to 60/40, to 40% all round) is given depending on why it was not played.

 

Second, the board was played. Passed Out is a legitimate contract, just as legitimate as 1NT=. In fact, I used to hate Passouts, because we played 10-12 NT first three seats NV, and it was very likely that we were getting a bottom on those passout hands because we weren't passing. Note: this is also why you don't just shuffle and redeal passouts in the first round - others' judgement of an opening bid is different from yours.

 

Third, the issue with this is that if I miss an Ace and open my 12-14 NT with 17 high, and play 1NT+3, I deserve my zero just as much as if I missed an Ace and passed my "9-count". Of course, what that means is that I also deserve my top when the limit is 8 tricks on that 1NT hand, *or when zero is better than any score I would have got from opening*. Mistake or brilliant judgement, I deserve my reward.

 

The last time I remember ruling on this, someone was busy talking about their previous hand and didn't count and passed his 16-count. Of course game was bid and made at all other tables. If you were the opponents, would you be happy if I said this board was "not played" and assigned you average for getting the best score on the board? If not, then in the much less common case where you get fixed, it's not fair to take away their top.

 

It may not be equity; restoring equity when there has been an infraction is a goal of the Laws, but here there was no infraction, and the Laws are silent where "bidding like an idiot" or "unable to count to 13" is concerned.

 

You got jobbed; I agree with you. They played badly and got a good result. But the poker players who bad beat you won't give back their winnings (on that hand, at least; if they continue to play that well, you will win your losses back and more), and neither will the bridge gods. Make them pay with your better judgement on the other boards.

[keithhus]

A passed in board has been played, so the comparison isn't valid. I'm not sure why you want to treat this mistake any differently from the myriad of other mistakes made at the bridge table.

 

I understand your point but the difference is that I did not have an opportunity to influence play.

[Vampyr]

A few years ago a pair bid a grand slam off a cashing AK. Unfortunately my partner was on lead with the K and didn't lead the suit. We didn't deserve our bottom. Should the board have been scrapped and everyone given an average? Where is the dividing line, OP?

[sfi]

I understand your point but the difference is that I did not have an opportunity to influence play.

 

Sure you did - you had an opportunity to open the bidding and chose not to do so.

 

There are many hands where no normal action of yours influences the outcome, and this is just one more of them.

 

It feels like you're looking for sympathy, and you'll get that because we've all been fixed by something at least this ridiculous. What you won't find much of is support to change the laws.

 

One similar example: LHO opens a nebulous forcing 1C and RHO passes because they momentarily forget the system. You have KQJTxx in clubs and the contract goes down 1 when everyone else is bidding the obvious 7D. We're ould you recommend adjusting here, and how? If not, why is it different?

[keithhus]

First, when a board is not played, a range of scores (from Not Played, of dubious legality, to average, to 60/40, to 40% all round) is given depending on why it was not played.

 

Second, the board was played. Passed Out is a legitimate contract, just as legitimate as 1NT=. In fact, I used to hate Passouts, because we played 10-12 NT first three seats NV, and it was very likely that we were getting a bottom on those passout hands because we weren't passing. Note: this is also why you don't just shuffle and redeal passouts in the first round - others' judgement of an opening bid is different from yours.

 

Third, the issue with this is that if I miss an Ace and open my 12-14 NT with 17 high, and play 1NT+3, I deserve my zero just as much as if I missed an Ace and passed my "9-count". Of course, what that means is that I also deserve my top when the limit is 8 tricks on that 1NT hand, *or when zero is better than any score I would have got from opening*. Mistake or brilliant judgement, I deserve my reward.

 

The last time I remember ruling on this, someone was busy talking about their previous hand and didn't count and passed his 16-count. Of course game was bid and made at all other tables. If you were the opponents, would you be happy if I said this board was "not played" and assigned you average for getting the best score on the board? If not, then in the much less common case where you get fixed, it's not fair to take away their top.

 

It may not be equity; restoring equity when there has been an infraction is a goal of the Laws, but here there was no infraction, and the Laws are silent where "bidding like an idiot" or "unable to count to 13" is concerned.

 

You got jobbed; I agree with you. They played badly and got a good result. But the poker players who bad beat you won't give back their winnings (on that hand, at least; if they continue to play that well, you will win your losses back and more), and neither will the bridge gods. Make them pay with your better judgement on the other boards.

 

Moving the issue on a little, when is a bid a mis bid/illegal? I think I have been told 1 card/2 points outside declared range. At our club, we play standard ACOL unless announced/alerted. Hence, standard opening is 12-14 points. Bear in mind we do not psyche at our level. Thanks

[keithhus]

Sure you did - you had an opportunity to open the bidding and chose not to do so.

 

There are many hands where no normal action of yours influences the outcome, and this is just one more of them.

 

It feels like you're looking for sympathy, and you'll get that because we've all been fixed by something at least this ridiculous. What you won't find much of is support to change the laws.

 

One similar example: LHO opens a nebulous forcing 1C and RHO passes because they momentarily forget the system. You have KQJTxx in clubs and the contract goes down 1 when everyone else is bidding the obvious 7D. We're ould you recommend adjusting here, and how? If not, why is it different?

 

I refer you to my question to mycroft. I had 9 hcp sitting 2nd. First bidder had 13 hcp and should have opened. If you feel I had an opportunity to bid then with respect I play a different system to you. All I am doing is pointing out where I feel the scoring system, in a specific instance, could be more equitable. I understand the points everyone has made and I appreciate there is no support for change but I still feel justified in raising the matter. Thanks for your response.

[mycroft]

Misbids are not illegal. Deviations (deliberate or otherwise) are not illegal, even if gross and deliberate (psychic calls). Giving an incorrect explanation of your *agreement* is illegal, even if the agreement has not been explicitly stated, but has worn itself into your partnership minds by implication or repeated use. This is true whether or not you accept that you have that agreement, if a reasonable person with your partnership experience would know about it.

 

The relevant Law is 40C1: Deviation from System and Psychic Action.

A player may deviate from his sides announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings, which then form part of the partnerships methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

 

Another relevant Law is 75: MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL, which explains the difference and how the TD will decide if a call that disagrees with explained agreement is to be ruled a misbid or misexplanation.

 

If what you're looking for is "what counts as a minor deviation", unfortunately there isn't (and can't be) a hard rule on that. The "two points/one card" guideline is just that (even if there are world-class players who will spout it as gospel) and works "in general" for wide-ranging bids - if you opened 1♥ (assuming 5+) on AQJT that would be minor (but 5432 likely not), as would opening a "12+" 1♥ on x AQJ8xx - KT9xxx. Sometimes one card is clearly a gross deviation - say a Flannery 2♦ call on 5-5 (unless it's ♠85432 ♥AKJ85) because the whole point behind Flannery is to bid it when you have 4=5 in the majors and not enough to reverse, and 5=5 has an easy 1♠/2♥ rebid. Similarly, if you're skirting the edges of allowed system regulations, otherwise "minor" deviations will be treated much more harshly, because some people (not you, of course) try to play an illegal method by announcing all of the bids that would be illegal if they explained their real method as "upgrades" or "minor deviations" or even "psychics". They aren't, of course, they're just trying to play something by deviousness that they wouldn't be allowed to play straight up.

 

I certainly think that someone who opens a flat boring 10-count a 12-14 NT is not making a minor deviation, "2 points" or no. I think that someone who opens pretty much every 11 count that isn't a 10 count is not making a minor deviation either, and if partner expects it and doesn't invite without a solid 12, they should be announcing their real range.

[mycroft]

I refer you to my question to mycroft. I had 9 hcp sitting 2nd. First bidder had 13 hcp and should have opened. If you feel I had an opportunity to bid then with respect I play a different system to you. All I am doing is pointing out where I feel the scoring system, in a specific instance, could be more equitable. I understand the points everyone has made and I appreciate there is no support for change but I still feel justified in raising the matter. Thanks for your response.

You had the opportunity to open. Your system says that it is a bad idea. You chose to follow system - almost always the right thing to do! - but that doesn't mean you didn't have the opportunity. It's just the same as when they have 36 between them and find the cold grand, and you never bid; you didn't get the opportunity to bid (or play, if you weren't on opening lead, as they claimed at trick 1), but you still get the score.

 

I ask again - if it turned out that everybody who held the 13-count went plus instead of minus when they opened, and you got a top, would you be calling for the TD to restore the hand to average? Unless the answer is "yes, of course" - and I'm not sure I've ever met the bridge player I'd believe if they said that - then there's no case for you (except for "they did something wrong, we deserve a good score", which I have a lot of sympathy for, but it cuts no ice with the Laws).

[sfi]

Moving the issue on a little, when is a bid a mis bid/illegal? I think I have been told 1 card/2 points outside declared range. At our club, we play standard ACOL unless announced/alerted. Hence, standard opening is 12-14 points. Bear in mind we do not psyche at our level. Thanks

 

Misbids and psychs are (almost) never illegal. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not doing you a favour in the long run.

[blackshoe]

Moving the issue on a little, when is a bid a mis bid/illegal? I think I have been told 1 card/2 points outside declared range. At our club, we play standard ACOL unless announced/alerted. Hence, standard opening is 12-14 points. Bear in mind we do not psyche at our level. Thanks

You seem to be asking "when is a deviation from disclosed methods illegal"? The answer is "rarely". A psych is, by definition, a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length. if the misstatement is not "gross" it's not a psych. According to the EBU White Book, "a misbid is an inadvertent mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A deviation is a deliberate but minor mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length" (WB §1.4.1). You say you think you've been told 1 card or 2 points outside declared range is illegal, but it's not that simple. Did the player deliberately deviate from their agreement, or did he make a mistake? Generally speaking, if he made a mistake, there's no problem unless his partner expects that he did (from prior experience most probably). Even then, if the partner discloses the tendency to misbid, there's no problem. If he deviated knowingly from agreements, that in itself is not illegal either. The question is whether his partner has any more reason to expect the deviation (again, most likely from prior experience) then the opponents do. If not, there's nothing illegal here.

 

As for a 1 card deviation, consider this: a pair play weak twos, and agree that such bids normally show a six card suit. To say that opening a weak two on a five card suit or a seven card suit is illegal would, I hope you agree, be ridiculous. First, such a rule would obviate the player's judgement, and judgement is what the game is all about. Second, opening a weak two on a good five card suit, particularly in third seat, is common practice even among non-experts.

 

I normally play a 15-17 1NT opening. I've seen a lot of hands with 14 HCP with which I would upgrade and open 1NT. With some partners, we write "good 14 to 17" on our card and explain it that way. With other partners, I've stopped upgrading because they can't remember to disclose properly. With still others, we've never discussed upgrading and they don't notice when I do. There is nothing wrong with any of that. Okay, that's one point. Two points? I've seen a few 13 counts, usually with a five card suit, that "look like" a fifteen count, but I don't open those 1NT — but I wouldn't claim that someone who did made an illegal bid, provided the tendency to upgrade is properly disclosed. Get down to 12 HCP and you're in psych territory, but still not illegal if properly disclosed, or if, more likely, the bidder's partner doesn't expect it.

 

White Book §1.4, Psychic Bidding, is a pretty good exposition of the principles involved. I recommend it to you (it's a free download from the EBU website).

 

NB: regarding psychs and the expectation of psyching, it sounds like in your club nobody would ever expect a psych. In such a situation, if someone did psych (a deliberate action, remember) he will have done nothing wrong as far as the rules of the game are concerned — but club management might ask him to refrain from doing it again. That said, a club that bans psychs is not playing bridge according to the rules of the game, and if I were in charge of giving out masterpoints for such a game, they wouldn't get any.

[billw55]

Thank you and everyone else for troubling to respond. However, I am going to keep digging! I am not convinced this is equity; ask the man on the Clapham Omnibus. When a board is not played due to slow play on a previous board(s) an average score is given. The QB analogy is akin to the wrong card being discarded during play. I do not see this as similar to the board being passed out due to a bidding error, resulting in the hand - I.e. Game, not being played. I appreciate mistakes are made during play which affects the scoring and I accept that is part and parcel of the game. However, I still feel these specific circumstances are different and that the laws should allow discretion to award an average score, say if both pairs agree. I appreciate I am inexperienced, and that it's not going to happen, but at the moment, I still feel an average would be a fairer outcome. Thank you all once again, onward and upward (hopefully).

As sfi said, you do have our sympathy. We have all been fixed, many times. Bad beat stories do get commiseration.

 

But they don't get changes in the rules. One problem is that ruling against mistakes is essentially impossible: most boards in most events would need adjustments! You would also have to define mistakes - this guy passed a 13 count that you think he should have opened. What about a 12 count, or 11? Or a normal preempt that was passed instead? Would you average these out too?

 

Another problem is that it is perfectly legal for the player who passed his 13 count to do so on purpose. Rolling back tactical choices that work would make bridge into a non-game.

 

 

[barmar]

I feel like this discussion should be moved to "General Bridge Discussion". "Simple Rulings" is supposed to be for basic questions about how to apply the Laws, not discussion about changing the rules of the game.

[sanst]

You claim to be damaged by the possible mistake or misbid of your opponents and therefore be entitled to some form of an equitable result. But nowhere in the laws it says so. Nearest comes Law 86D "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity." But an offence should have been committed if you want to use this law. And a legal pass, even if you have 37HCP, is not an offence, so this law doesn't come into play.

You refer to the meaning of equity. Although I 'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it has to do with fairness. But was it unfair of your opponent to pass? Would it still have been unfair if they missed a game?

[blackshoe]

86D only applies in team play. This appears to have been pairs, unless I missed something.

 

barmar: you're right that discussion of what the laws "should" be, or of changes to them, doesn't belong in simple rulings, but I'm inclined to cut the group a little slack on that. Consider it thread drift, which is okay as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

 

This really should be a simple ruling question.