[lamford]

---

24-board match. Opening lead 2♥ Table result NS+1660.

The (poor) auction from this match at a local club in Brighton last night needs some explanation as South's Six Spade bid would certainly be classed as SEWoG by gnasher. North, the club's rabbit, initially took an age to lead against 6♥ by West, having recently taken up third and fifth leads and wondering what he should lead from seven small. While he was pondering, East-West swapped hands (a very bad habit they had), and East also volunteered the information that 2♦ should, of course, have been alerted, as they played that 2♥ was a Roth negative, 0-3 with no controls. South, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, pricked up his ears and called the director and stated that there was misinformation. The TD arrived and listened to the auction and asked, "What was the misinformation?" South stated that 2♦ should have been alerted and was not. "OK, I cannot do anything about that now, but you can change your last pass if you want", the TD replied. South elected to do so, and substituted 6♠, and West's loud double ended the auction. "Don't go away," insisted SB to the TD, "I think we will be needing you at least 26 more times, so I would pull up a chair, if I were you", he added patronisingly. "EW exchanged hands before North led to 6♥, so all 26 of their cards are now major penalty cards, having been exposed in the auction, and must be placed face up on the table, and I direct the opening lead and all subsequent play". West was forced to lead a low heart, and dummy cashed three rounds of the suit, East and South discarding diamonds, while West ducked. Now five rounds of diamonds followed, with East and West discarding their royal flushes in the rounded suits. Four more ruffs followed, West and East underruffing as expensively as possible, with West discarding the nine of hearts on the club that was ruffed with the three of spades. Declarer conceded trick 13 to the top spades, but had his +1660 in the bag. West, also fairly knowledgable about the Laws, thought the TD had misapplied Law 21B1(a) in that he did not believe that South's original decision to pass out 6♥ "could well have been influenced by misinformation", and he thought that there was director error. The TD rang up campboy who did not think the result at the table needed to be "normal", and advised that EW should score 6H+1 and NS 6Sx=. All were unsure how this should be handled in a match as the White Book did not seem to cover it. South's gloating about reaching the only making slam did not help matters.

Can readers help? And as an aside, should the TD judge whether the final pass could well have been influenced by misinformation, as required by the Law, rather than offering a change routinely, as advised by the EBU County Director's Course? Unsurprisingly, the match result depends on the ruling.

[ahydra]

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

I like Campboy's "ruling" here . No way does the misinformation mean that South now wants to bid 6S, so there was director error.

The OS is EW - on two counts, the hand swapping and the misinformation. Did they gain any advantage from the irregularity? Nope. So in absence of TD error, they would keep their result. However, there was TD error and 82C says we should treat them as non-offending. They were damaged by the director error, so we give them an adjusted score, and 6H+1 is a sensible adjusted score to give.

Were NS damaged? Nope, they got a huge result thanks to South's antics. So no reason to adjust their score.

I would give EW a PP for hand-swapping.

ahydra

[lamford]

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

Were NS damaged? Nope, they got a huge result thanks to South's antics. So no reason to adjust their score.

So, how would you score the match on this board? The result in the other room was 6H+1 as well. And the other issue was that West should have been silenced after 6S for exchanging hands but the director was not aware at that point of both the irregularities. And are you saying that similar TD misinformation rulings in the EBU where the director has not endeavoured to establish whether the final pass "could well have been influenced by the misinformation" are wrong? In my experience, on every occasion there has been MI, the final passer has been offered the option to change his or her call, and I must confess to blundering and doing that at my local club.

[campboy]

I agree with "my" ruling. I'm surprised the White Book doesn't mention the possibility of a split score in knock-out play (but I couldn't find it if so); anyway, if a split score means that both teams have a positive IMP total for the match, the team with the bigger total wins.

I note in passing that the White Book does say that an assigned adjusted score is required in this sort of case.

WB 8.82.1 (extract) said:

To summarise, if the TD knows what would have happened if the TD had given the correct ruling originally then they should just correct it, however embarrassing. If the TD does not and a result has been obtained on the board then they should assign, treating each side as non-offending for the purpose, which will often result in split scores. The TD will frequently use their powers under Law 12C1 (c) to weight each of these scores. The TD only gives artificial scores if they have incorrectly cancelled the board.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 08:57, said:

I agree with "my" ruling. I'm surprised the White Book doesn't mention the possibility of a split score in knock-out play (but I couldn't find it if so); anyway, if a split score means that both teams have a positive IMP total for the match, the team with the bigger total wins.

I could not find it either. But I agree with the last sentence. However, I do not think this qualifies as a rectification being possible which allows the board to be scored normally. The problem is that this phrase is not defined in the laws, so the TD interprets what it means. If you think that 6Sx is normal, then you must lead a very exciting bridge life. I would rule 3 IMPs to each side in the match, effectively scrapping the board owing to director error.

[campboy]

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

I could not find it either. But I agree with the last sentence. However, I do not think this qualifies as a rectification being possible which allows the board to be scored normally. The problem is that this phrase is not defined in the laws, so the TD interprets what it means. If you think that 6Sx is normal, then you must lead a very exciting bridge life. I would rule 3 IMPs to each side in the match, effectively scrapping the board owing to director error.

If you were only going to read half my post, I would recommend reading the half which is quoted from the White Book rather than the bit I wrote. If a result was obtained -- normal or otherwise -- the TD should give an assigned score.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 09:16, said:

If you were only going to read half my post, I would recommend reading the half which is quoted from the White Book rather than the bit I wrote. If a result was obtained -- normal or otherwise -- the TD should give an assigned score.

If you are going to edit your post to add another reference, then I would recommend using the "edited by" line, or maybe you think it is also "normal" not to do that. The post was quoted in its entirety. You will notice that I often put "<snip>" when choosing only to comment on part of it.

And it would appear that your addendum beginning "I note in passing" was added as an afterthought. If you were using the phrase correctly, then it would not be necessary for me to read it, as it means, broadly, that you are including some information that is not necessary for understanding the main topic, but may be interesting. And it cannot be equitable that the player gets a result on the board which would be manifestly better than he would have got if the TD had given the correct ruling. And nothing in the WB (nor as far as I can see in the Laws) indicates that the assigned result must be the one obtained at the table.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 06:13, said:

The TD rang up campboy who did not think the result at the table needed to be "normal", and advised that EW should score 6H+1 and NS 6Sx=. All were unsure how this should be handled in a match as the White Book did not seem to cover it.

L86B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play

Quote

When the Director awards non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in
knockout play, each contestant’s score on the board is calculated separately.
The average of the two scores is then assigned to each contestant.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 09:28, said:

If you are going to edit your post to add another reference, then I would recommend using the "edited by" line, or maybe you think it is also "normal" not to do that. The post was quoted in its entirety. You will notice that I often put "<snip>" when choosing only to comment on part of it.

And it would appear that your addendum beginning "I note in passing" was added as an afterthought. If you were using the phrase correctly, then it would not be necessary for me to read it, as it means, broadly, that you are including some information that is not necessary for understanding the main topic, but may be interesting.

Sorry, I certainly thought I had written the whole post at once, and I always intended to quote the WB since I had found that passage while checking that there was nothing about split scores in knockouts. But clearly I was misremembering and I apologise.

[edit]I see Gordon has posted the regulation, which I didn't find as I was searching for "split score".

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2014-August-14, 09:46, said:

Sorry, I certainly thought I had written the whole post at once, and I always intended to quote the WB since I had found that passage while checking that there was nothing about split scores in knockouts. But clearly I was misremembering and I apologise.

[edit]I see Gordon has posted the regulation, which I didn't find as I was searching for "split score".

Your apology accepted. But the main issue is whether there is any requirement for the table score to stand in assigning an adjusted score. I cannot find any Law which specifies either way. And Vampyr logged in as lamford and the latter did not notice. I have agreed with you and gordontd on the application of split scores.

[lamford]

I think that the principle when awarding an assigned adjusted score is to restore equity, treating both sides as non-offenders. And I did not find the reference in the WB either, as I was looking for Director's Error, which just gave page 144 in the index. Is there anyone else out there who would donate SB, and his team the Brighton Bullfinches, 50% of 22 IMPs on this board?

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2014-August-14, 06:13, said:

... and advised that EW should score 6H+1 and NS 6Sx=. All were unsure how this should be handled in a match as the White Book did not seem to cover it. South's gloating about reaching the only making slam did not help matters.

Why do you need guidance from the white book when law 86B tells you what to do with non-balancing adjustments in knockout play

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2014-August-14, 18:31, said:

Why do you need guidance from the white book when law 86B tells you what to do with non-balancing adjustments in knockout play

That Law has already been quoted by gordontd in reply. However Law 82C tells us that [the director] "shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose." If a non-balancing adjustment was allowed, then this law would surely say "one or more adjusted scores". It appears that director error in a match can only be rectified by the award of "an" adjusted score. And how can awarding +1660 to NS half the time be "treating both sides as non-offending"? If you award a non-balancing adjustment in knockout play after director error, you will automatically be treating one or other side as offending - the one to whom you give the worse result. Law 86B can only apply to a non-balancing adjustment where, for example, one side takes an action that is deemed SEWoG, and makes no sense if both sides are treated as non-offending.

[blackshoe]

This place is beginning to look like blml again.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-14, 21:45, said:

This place is beginning to look like blml again.

I disagree. This thread, although far-fetched, raises two important issues, neither of a pedantic nature. One is that it cannot be correct to have an unbalanced score in a knockout match after director error, and the only two options are the normal result or +3 IMPs to both teams, effectively scrapping the board. Also, in practice, both in the UK, and in my limited experience in the US, TDs routinely and incorrectly offer the final caller an opportunity to replace his or her call at the point when the misinformation is discovered, without attempting to "judge whether the call could well have been influenced by misinformation."

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-August-15, 05:02, said:

I disagree. This thread, although far-fetched, raises two important issues, neither of a pedantic nature. One is that it cannot be correct to have an unbalanced score in a knockout match after director error,

This strikes me as both pedantic and wrong. I think it's covered by L12C1a & L12C1f.

lamford, on 2014-August-15, 05:02, said:

Also, in practice, both in the UK, and in my limited experience in the US, TDs routinely and incorrectly offer the final caller an opportunity to replace his or her call at the point when the misinformation is discovered, without attempting to "judge whether the call could well have been influenced by misinformation."

I usually tell players that they are allowed to change the call if it was influenced by the misinformation. That way anyone with doubts can ask me after the hand is over to look at the actions taken, but I'm not going to look at the hand and offer an opinion during the auction period. In practice, I don't think I've known of a situation when someone wanted to change their call in these circumstances for a reason other than that it was influenced by the misinformation, but I have no doubt that such a case will shortly occur at a certain North London bridge club.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-August-15, 05:02, said:

I disagree. This thread, although far-fetched, raises two important issues, neither of a pedantic nature. One is that it cannot be correct to have an unbalanced score in a knockout match after director error, and the only two options are the normal result or +3 IMPs to both teams, effectively scrapping the board. Also, in practice, both in the UK, and in my limited experience in the US, TDs routinely and incorrectly offer the final caller an opportunity to replace his or her call at the point when the misinformation is discovered, without attempting to "judge whether the call could well have been influenced by misinformation."

1: What is wrong with an unbalanced score along the line of assigning one adjusted score to one side and a different adjusted score to the other?

I know of no knockout matches that are played with only one board so there should be no need to throw a board subjected to Director's error out of the match if the Director has reason to rule for instance a 2 IMP win to team A and a 8 IMP win to team B. The result on that board in the match will then be 3 IMP to team B.

2: As for allowing the final caller to replace his/her call of course depends on the condition that the call was influenced by the misinformation. But the Director should be very careful about denying the caller this privilege unless it is obvious at the time that the condition could not possibly be satisfied. Instead he might warn the caller that the assertion of having been influenced by the misinformation could well become subject to a subsequent judgement and possibly adjusted score.

It is (in my experience) a sound policy to let the caller be heard on the assertion because then the case is closed as far as NOS is concerned.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-August-15, 07:39, said:

This strikes me as both pedantic and wrong. I think it's covered by L12C1a & L12C1f.


I usually tell players that they are allowed to change the call if it was influenced by the misinformation. That way anyone with doubts can ask me after the hand is over to look at the actions taken, but I'm not going to look at the hand and offer an opinion during the auction period. In practice, I don't think I've known of a situation when someone wanted to change their call in these circumstances for a reason other than that it was influenced by the misinformation, but I have no doubt that such a case will shortly occur at a certain North London bridge club.

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.

And I agree that your approach is 100% correct in the second paragraph above. Perhaps the director courses should advise budding TDs to follow your recommendation of what players should be told, as I have never been advised in this manner by any TD. And I think someone choosing to change their last call when being offered the option by the TD cannot be subjected to sanction as pran suggests above. However I do not think TDs should be advised to follow your wrong recommendation of applying two illegal non-balancing assigned scores in the case of director error.

[blackshoe]

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

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.

Logical? Maybe so, but I don't buy it. It's equally logical to suggest that "he shall award an adjusted score" means "he shall follow the procedures outlined in Law 12," including, possibly, Law 12C1{f}.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to express it as if it was absolute truth.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-15, 18:29, said:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to express it as if it was absolute truth.

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.