[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-August-15, 18:50, said:

I didn't. I stated that "an adjusted score" was not the same as "adjusted scores". The TD should follow 82C, which is unambiguous. He shall "award an adjusted score" means just that. Neither more nor less, as Alice would say.

And, yet again, I have reached a point where a post has become too time-consuming, and I have nothing more to add. I stand by the two main points that I made, and will not comment on this thread again, nor will I respond to any direct questions, fearing a rebuke for not keeping to my word.

Nice copout. I suspect you knew I would ask how you would "assign an adjusted score" to both pairs in your case, while treating both of them as non-offending. So I say again, nice copout.

[lamford]

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 09:08, said:

I would rule 3 IMPs to each side in the match, effectively scrapping the board owing to director error.

[pran]

I do hope everybody is aware that +3 IMP to each side is another example of (artificial) adjusted scores that do not balance!

This does not imply that the board is simply thrown out of the match between the two sides, instead the two sides will end up with matchpoint totals that add up to more than 20 in this match!

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-August-15, 18:13, said:

Regarding L12C1f, which deals with adjusted scores generally, that states "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." However, 82C, states, in the case of director error, "he [the TD] shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose." Are you saying that the use of "scores" in L12C1F and "score" in 82C is coincidental, and a further error? I don't think so. It is logical that "an adjusted score" is awarded in the case of director error, and awarding more than one assigned score would be further director error! And this paragraph answers pran's question above as well. The acid test of your claim is how you would rule in this case. If you follow campboy's (presumed) ruling of +1660 for NS and +1460 for EW, two different non-balancing scores, then perhaps you might indicate how this is treating EW as non-offending, and also how it is awarding "an adjusted score". And my correspondent down here was hoping to get a ruling for the above hand between the Brighton Bullfinches and the Sussex Seagulls in the Pedants' Premiership.

What do we call it when we give non-balancing adjusted scores? We call it "a split score". If you are tempted to say that you don't, may I say that there are several examples on this forum where you have.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-August-17, 07:30, said:

What do we call it when we give non-balancing adjusted scores? We call it "a split score". If you are tempted to say that you don't, may I say that there are several examples on this forum where you have.

I am wholeheartedly in favour of giving split scores, weighted scores, or non-balancing adjusted scores in any event, other than for director error in a head-to-head knockout match, where, I submit, it is impossible to do so at the same time as treating both sides as non-offending. In multiple team events, +3 to both non-offending sides, as happened when there was a fouling by a previous pair in the midweek teams at Brighton, seems to conform to all the Laws. My caveat is solely in relation to a non-balancing score through director error in a knockout match. And I am replying out of courtesy to you, even though I said that I would not.

[blackshoe]

I went back and re-read the OP. The director has made more than one error here - for one thing, he let South walk all over him, resulting in multiple failures to follow the laws. For one example, when South instructed West to lead a small heart, all the rest of West's hearts are no longer penalty cards - they go back in his hand. So South is not getting three heart tricks. Similar errors in the rest of the play.

I think this attempt at a hypothetical problem, particularly given that Paul has decided he doesn't want to spend any more time on it, is pretty much over. I'm certainly not going to spend any more time here.

[RSliwinski]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-17, 17:57, said:

I went back and re-read the OP. The director has made more than one error here - for one thing, he let South walk all over him, resulting in multiple failures to follow the laws. For one example, when South instructed West to lead a small heart, all the rest of West's hearts are no longer penalty cards - they go back in his hand. So South is not getting three heart tricks. Similar errors in the rest of the play.

I think this attempt at a hypothetical problem, particularly given that Paul has decided he doesn't want to spend any more time on it, is pretty much over. I'm certainly not going to spend any more time here.

You are wrong. The OP is constructed more cleverly than you think.
The only time South instructed a defender to lead anything is at the first lead,when South instructed West to lead a small heart. Now it not true tat then all the rest of West heart's are no longer penalty cards - Law 51 B applies not to West but to West's partner i.e., if East had any hearts as penalty cards, he could pick them all up - but he does not have any hearts!. In the rest of the play the opponents never have to lead, so there is no application of 51 B. Thus all the defenders' cards not yet played remain penalty cards.

[blackshoe]

RSliwinski, on 2014-August-17, 19:13, said:

You are wrong.

Thank you for putting it so bluntly. If you hadn't, I might not have got it.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-August-17, 14:36, said:

I am wholeheartedly in favour of giving split scores, weighted scores, or non-balancing adjusted scores in any event, other than for director error in a head-to-head knockout match, where, I submit, it is impossible to do so at the same time as treating both sides as non-offending. In multiple team events, +3 to both non-offending sides, as happened when there was a fouling by a previous pair in the midweek teams at Brighton, seems to conform to all the Laws. My caveat is solely in relation to a non-balancing score through director error in a knockout match. And I am replying out of courtesy to you, even though I said that I would not.

Thank you Paul, it is appreciated.

[pran]

RSliwinski, on 2014-August-17, 19:13, said:

You are wrong. The OP is constructed more cleverly than you think.
The only time South instructed a defender to lead anything is at the first lead,when South instructed West to lead a small heart. Now it not true tat then all the rest of West heart's are no longer penalty cards - Law 51 B applies not to West but to West's partner i.e., if East had any hearts as penalty cards, he could pick them all up - but he does not have any hearts!. In the rest of the play the opponents never have to lead, so there is no application of 51 B. Thus all the defenders' cards not yet played remain penalty cards.

And even this correction is incorrect!

When declarer requests or forbids a defender to lead in a particular suit because his partner has major penalty card(s) in that suit then all partner's penalty cards in that suit cease to be penalty cards. So far you are correct.

But when a defender has more than one penalty card and declarer instructs that defender which of his penalty cards he shall play then this instruction has no effect on whatever penalty cards his partner might have, they remain penalty cards all the time (as of course do the defender's penalty cards not called by declarer)!

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-August-17, 14:36, said:

I am wholeheartedly in favour of giving split scores, weighted scores, or non-balancing adjusted scores in any event, other than for director error in a head-to-head knockout match, where, I submit, it is impossible to do so at the same time as treating both sides as non-offending. In multiple team events, +3 to both non-offending sides, as happened when there was a fouling by a previous pair in the midweek teams at Brighton, seems to conform to all the Laws. My caveat is solely in relation to a non-balancing score through director error in a knockout match. And I am replying out of courtesy to you, even though I said that I would not.

Again: +3 to both sides (considered non-offending) is a split score (or according to the laws: non-balancing scores).

(If every other board in that match is a push then both teams "win" the match with IMP scores 3-0 and 0-3 respectively.)

[RMB1]

pran, on 2014-August-18, 00:54, said:

Again: +3 to both sides (considered non-offending) is a split score (or according to the laws: non-balancing scores).

I think Law 86B applies to non-balancing adjustments in knockout teams (based on the heading in the law ). +3 / +3 is a non-balancing adjustment so the average of the two scores (0/0) is assigned to each team.

[fbuijsen]

pran, on 2014-August-18, 00:54, said:

Again: +3 to both sides (considered non-offending) is a split score (or according to the laws: non-balancing scores).

(If every other board in that match is a push then both teams "win" the match with IMP scores 3-0 and 0-3 respectively.)

As I read it, lanford's argument is specifically for knockout matches: it is simply impossible to really give unbalanced assigned scores. Let's say you give an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to both sides as above, and the score ends up as 33-31 for team A and 34-30 for team B (the score being 31-30 without the one board). Clearly, the team B ends up winning the match.
So the so-called unbalanced score assignment is effectively the exact same as as giving an assigned score of 0 IMPs to each side.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-August-18, 00:54, said:

Again: +3 to both sides (considered non-offending) is a split score (or according to the laws: non-balancing scores).

(If every other board in that match is a push then both teams "win" the match with IMP scores 3-0 and 0-3 respectively.)

RMB1, on 2014-August-18, 01:52, said:

I think Law 86B applies to non-balancing adjustments in knockout teams (based on the heading in the law ). +3 / +3 is a non-balancing adjustment so the average of the two scores (0/0) is assigned to each team.

fbuijsen, on 2014-August-18, 01:52, said:

As I read it, lanford's argument is specifically for knockout matches: it is simply impossible to really give unbalanced assigned scores. Let's say you give an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to both sides as above, and the score ends up as 33-31 for team A and 34-30 for team B (the score being 31-30 without the one board). Clearly, the team B ends up winning the match.
So the so-called unbalanced score assignment is effectively the exact same as as giving an assigned score of 0 IMPs to each side.

For a knock-out match this is the obvious consequence. As quoted (Law 86B) unbalanced scores in knockout play shall be averaged.

My point was that (for instance) +3/+3 is an unbalanced adjusted score (leading to a split score) also applicable in knockout play.

(Note that also in knockout play it is possible to have unbalanced adjusted scores not averaging 0 IMPS to each side!)

[lamford]

RSliwinski, on 2014-August-17, 19:13, said:

The OP is constructed more cleverly than you think.

How do you know it is constructed?

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2014-August-14, 08:20, said:

"Only making slam"? I think 7NT makes, does it not? Not to mention 7H by West.
ahydra

Well spotted. SB should have been gloating about reaching their only making slam. A rare grammatical error by SB, who should learn to gloat accurately.

[chrism]

fbuijsen, on 2014-August-18, 01:52, said:

As I read it, lanford's argument is specifically for knockout matches: it is simply impossible to really give unbalanced assigned scores. Let's say you give an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to both sides as above, and the score ends up as 33-31 for team A and 34-30 for team B (the score being 31-30 without the one board). Clearly, the team B ends up winning the match.
So the so-called unbalanced score assignment is effectively the exact same as as giving an assigned score of 0 IMPs to each side.

True in a head-to-head match, but not necessarily in a three-way (either one or two survivors). This situation actually arose several years ago in a Gatlinburg Regional. I had a brain misfire and gave a ruling from which we deemed that there was no recovery (indeed, it was barring the wrong partner after an opening bid out of turn). We awarded +3 IMPs to each side; the net effect of this could have been that the third team in the KO, who were completely uninvolved in the ruling might have been eliminated (in fact, happily, the margins were such that the error had no effect on the outcome).

For example, in a 3-way, 2-survivor round: A beats B by 2, C beats A by 1, and after an adjustment for director's error B is +4 and C is +2 in the B-C match. So A has 1 win, B has 1 win, and C has 2 wins. The CoC have a team with 2 wins going forward, so C progresses. When more than one team has a win and a loss, it is resolved by net IMPs; A is +1, B is +2. B goes forward, Ignoring the tainted board, each team would have one win, A (net 1 IMP) and C (net 0) would go forward with B (net -1) eliminated.

I am not saying that an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to each party to a director's error in a KO match is wrong; I am simply observing that in a very rare case it might actually affect the outcome rather than just canceling out.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2014-August-18, 01:52, said:

I think Law 86B applies to non-balancing adjustments in knockout teams (based on the heading in the law ). +3 / +3 is a non-balancing adjustment so the average of the two scores (0/0) is assigned to each team.

Hm. I see how you got there, but what if the scores were, for some reason, +3/+4? Would the average then be +0.5 to each side?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-18, 15:19, said:

Hm. I see how you got there, but what if the scores were, for some reason, +3/+4? Would the average then be +0.5 to each side?

In the absence of regulation it would be -0.5 to the team awarded +3 / +0.5 to the team awarded +4.

The EBU would round +0.5 to +1 and -0.5 to -1.
There are examples in the White Book where AVE+/AVE = +3/0 becomes +1.5/-1.5 rounded to +2/-2.