[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2014-March-27, 08:27, said:

I actually awarded a score of 70% 4♥(N)= and 30% 4♦(W)-1.

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-27, 11:56, said:

I'm in ACBL land but am intrigued by the split score approach.

Are you allowed to award 70% of 4♥ making to N/S and 100% of 4♥ making to E/W?

Maybe more egregious circumstances are required but I don't care for E/W escaping with 30% of an undeserved result. Perhaps a PP covers this kind of situation?

If the ACBL ever adopted split rulings I could imagine an appeal on every one of them to modify the percentages and think it's an awful lot of pressure to put on the Director.

I think you've misunderstood. This was not a split score, it's a weighted score, awarded under Law 12C1{c}. The same aggregate score would be awarded to both sides. No one vulnerable, that's 0.7*420+0.3*50= +310 to NS, -310 to EW.

I don't think you can split the score as you suggest.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-27, 16:18, said:

I think you've misunderstood. This was not a split score, it's a weighted score, awarded under Law 12C1{c}. The same aggregate score would be awarded to both sides. No one vulnerable, that's 0.7*420+0.3*50= +310 to NS, -310 to EW.

I don't think you can split the score as you suggest.

I think you've misunderstood, Ed. It's not possible to score +310.

What the scorer does is to look up the matchpoints for N/S +420 and the matchpoints for N/S +50

N/S's matchpoint score on the board is 70%*MP(+420) + 30%*MP(+50).

Occasionally, there are situations where it is appropriate to assign 'split and weighted' scores like ggwhiz suggests, but this would be unusual: it generally needs a SE(UttI)Wog action by the non-offending side, or a situation where both sides are offending, or a situation where both sides are non-offending.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-March-27, 17:07, said:

I think you've misunderstood, Ed. It's not possible to score +310.

What the scorer does is to look up the matchpoints for N/S +420 and the matchpoints for N/S +50

N/S's matchpoint score on the board is 70%*MP(+420) + 30%*MP(+50).

Occasionally, there are situations where it is appropriate to assign 'split and weighted' scores like ggwhiz suggests, but this would be unusual: it generally needs a SE(UttI)Wog action by the non-offending side, or a situation where both sides are offending, or a situation where both sides are non-offending.

I'm not in England and have no experience with weighted scores other than what I've seen here, so forgive me if I got it wrong. It did occur to me that 310 is an odd score, and that perhaps weighting the matchpoint scores would be the right way to do it, but I was in a hurry and feel it is the principle that matters (it's not a split score, it's a weighted score).

[gordontd]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-27, 11:56, said:

If the ACBL ever adopted split rulings I could imagine an appeal on every one of them to modify the percentages and think it's an awful lot of pressure to put on the Director.

We have a regulation telling Appeals Committees not to just make minor adjustments of percentages, so such appeals would be quite likely to be deemed frivolous. Having the ability to award weighted results actually takes some of the pressure off the TD.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2014-March-27, 16:01, said:

The reason for my question about the timing of South's remarks was that your original post said:

Quote

.... I was called at the end of the auction by South.....

Sorry, I didn't realise I'd said that. That was an error.

jallerton, on 2014-March-27, 16:01, said:

If you were in fact not called at the end of the auction then we have to deal with that infraction as well.

I don't agree with your contention that: "NS had no reason to suppose anything was amiss until the hand had been played out" as far as North was concerned. North knows that 3♦ was not intended as game forcing as why did West pass 4♦? North also has such a strong hand that he can work out that there has been a misexplanation, misbid or psyche.

Your ruling is certainly legal, although one can argue with the judgement. For example, if South bids 4♥, East or West might well go on to 5♦.

As I said earlier, North was experienced enough to make his own case, and although I might have prompted a lesser player I don't think he needed it. He didn't claim any damage for himself.

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

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2014-March-27, 10:14, said:

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.)

campboy, on 2014-March-27, 10:14, said:

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]

VixTD, on 2014-March-28, 07:41, said:

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!

VixTD, on 2014-March-28, 07:54, said:

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]

VixTD, on 2014-March-28, 07:54, said:

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?