[VixTD]

bluejak, on 2012-September-26, 05:03, said:

Of course it says "may". When a weighted score is inappropriate, you do not give it. So of course you do not say "weighted scores must be given".

Law 12C1(c ) addresses only those cases where there is more than one possible outcome, and in those cases it grants the director permission (nothing more) to award a weighted score. Mrdct is quite right, a naive reading of the law suggests it is not expected, and certainly not obligatory, to apply weighted rulings in such cases.

Current English practice would be better served if "may" were replaced by "should", it's true, but to argue that the choice of "may" instead of of "should" or "must" is to cover those cases where there is only one possible outcome is incorrect, and based on a biased reading of the law.

[campboy]

I agree with VixTD. When the writers mean that the TD may do X, and should do so if condition C applies, they say so: see law 86D.

Of course it is still a good idea to give a weighted ruling whenever the outcome is in doubt.

[TimG]

Codo, on 2012-September-26, 04:28, said:

So, for someone for whom a pass of 5 ♠ was not just an LA but the correct bid, the XX simply does not change his imps expectations so much.
But if I am right with this numbers, the "I may lose the match if I pass" argument is simply wrong- at least not convincing enough to disregard pass as a LA.

Isn't there different information over 5S and 5SXX? When west passed 5S, she didn't know whether or not partner was bidding 5H to make and didn't know whether the opponents were bidding 5S to make or sacrifice or had misjudged and had missed slam. When she next had a chance to call, her partner had doubled suggesting that they had hoped to make 5H and her opponent had doubled suggesting they had a high expectation of making or being down at most one; there is now less danger that the opponents have missed a slam.

At the time of either passing or bidding on over the redouble, West might reasonably expect the result for bidding 6H to be somewhere between -50 and -300; while the result for passing 5SXX to be somewhere between +400 and -1200.

If passing is wrong, the team rates to be -550 (+650 -1200) for a loss of 11 IMPs when they make 5S at the other table, or -1100 (+100 -1200) or -900 (+300 -1200) for a loss of 15 or 14 when they collect a penalty against 6HX at the other table.

If bidding 6H is wrong, the team rates to be -300 (-100 -200) or -500 (-300 -200) for a loss of 7 or 11 IMPs (assuming all contracts will be doubled) when teammates go down in 5S at the other table.

So, when passing 5SXX is wrong, it loses from 11 to 15 IMPs; when bidding 6H is wrong, it loses from 7 to 11 IMPs.

It seems that bidding 6H is the safer option. Maybe this way of thinking isn't quite right, but avoiding the potential for losing 14 or 15 IMPs (if things go really wrong) and instead risking a loss of 7 to 11, seems like something that someone who thinks they are ahead by a bit might want to do.

But really, I think that we have to consider that West has more information upon which to base a decision when the auction comes back around. And, that passing 5S doesn't say that West thinks the best way to win the match is to defend 5S, but rather is just an admission that she has insufficient information to offer a unilateral opinion. She is much better informed after hearing the double and redouble.

[bluejak]

It is interesting. I am asked for a judgement, I tell you my judgement, I am told I am wrong. So be it - some people think I am wrong.

But them people seem to be arguing that it is logical that I am wrong base don something or other. Why? What is the point?

On the auction, in my opinion, pass is not an LA. I do not care at all whether people disagree with me, but to disagree with my logic in a matter of judgement not logic seems futile.

[mycroft]

The only thing I can say about lalldonn's argument (about having a partner) is that I am massively defensive-trick-light for my opening. The chance of partner doubling on two tricks, or one-and-two-possibles, is quite high. Partner is expecting more than the one-half defensive tricks I have (and half-QTs have a tendency to go away on hands like these, as it turns out on this hand it does).

Sure, they're 20-down and could easily be redoubling "for free", but the chance of the above being the case has just gone up. How much? I don't know.

I don't discount the pollees all of whom clearly don't share West's judgement completely, but I would want to find someone who would pass 5♠ undoubled. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that a lot of them that do would pull 5♠xx in a flash, because that's the way they think - but they're not likely to be peers of Crockfords KO players (although there are many "about US LMs" that think that way. If this particular West is in the LN(ovice) category, or the "don't think about next round" category, I'm probably going to lean to letting the pull go. On the other hand, the fact that West still refused to show his clubs on the pull (what was he going to do when it went 6♥-6♠-x-p?) lends more weight to the "many US LMs" argument).

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-September-24, 10:12, said:

West was asked why they bid 6♥:

"We were 20IMPs up [at the start of the stanza] and these boards were going OK. 5S redoubled [making] could win them the match. I had no tricks. I would have passed the double [without the redouble]."

Was the fact that West would have passed the double of 5S (without the redouble) conveyed to the EBU referees?

[lamford]

TimG, on 2012-September-26, 08:41, said:

And, that passing 5S doesn't say that West thinks the best way to win the match is to defend 5S, but rather is just an admission that she has insufficient information to offer a unilateral opinion. She is much better informed after hearing the double and redouble.

She is indeed much better informed after the slow double, but none the wiser it would seem, as she would have, by her own admission, passed the double (without the redouble), according to the TD finding of facts.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2012-September-26, 10:11, said:

She is indeed much better informed after the slow double, but none the wiser it would seem, as she would have, by her own admission, passed the double (without the redouble), according to the TD finding of facts.

Quite wise, it seems. She and we recognized that passing the redouble goes beyond ethics and into the realm of suicide, whereas passing the mere double would be a L.A. counter-suggested by the UI. To repeat, however --this was not a simply slow double which IMO should be expected to be slow on this auction; it involved a clear indication that her partner was choosing between pass and double, not among pass, double and bids.

Gender reference is Lamford's, not my usual "she".

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-24, 17:57, said:

The redouble changes the math drastically, especially considering the state of the match. Passing is no longer logical, and it is a masochistic alternative.

This type of argument has been repeated by many. However, we never know the true state of the match. There are seven boards in the other room before this one, and the Spring Fours extra eight boards show that anything can happen in one room. For it to be relevant, the match has to be still undecided. The actual situation where you are now leading by 5 would lead you to make a very different assessment. Now if 5Sxx and 6Hx are both one off, and the opponent holding your cards makes the correct decision (presumably to pass 5Sx although you can only guess), you will lose 300 on the board and lose 7 IMPs and the match. However, if you pass, you will win 200 and win the match by match by 8. So the decision is already critical and it is NOT the case that you can guarantee the match just by pulling. And that is an ideal scenario, 5 IMPs up with a board to play. If you are 20 IMPs up with a board to play, it probably does not matter what you do.

The other point is that the telephone TD should have established what North was thinking of doing in order to establish what might happen if 6H was disallowed. The fact that she clearly went for the front of the box must make it less likely that she will pull her own double. If she had been considering 6H but changed her mind and doubled, there would be more validity to the claims by one or two of you that she might pull her own double.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 06:59, said:

---

Table result 6HX=This was the last board of a 32 board Crockfords Knockout match. All the players are reasonable County standard or above - about US Life Master perhaps. East went to the bidding box, withdrew her hand, thought again and then doubled. North-South were trailing by 20 going into the last set, so South tried a redouble, but West pulled to 6H. North-South thought that Pass was an LA for West, and the telephone EBU director initially shared that view, but stated he would consult. He rang two EBU referees and gave their ruling that Pass was not an LA so the table result stood.Of course, the ruling affected the result of the match (it always does) but our team (NS on this board) decided not to appeal (and indeed the appeal time has now expired being 12 hours after the telephone ruling), but I would be interested in the viewpoint of readers, as another leading TD thought it was very close.

This is not exactly correct. The TD rang a number of people, including two EBU referees but also others. You were only told the names of the referees in particular for the practical reason that if you wanted to appeal, you would then know that you shouldn't appeal to either of them.

lamford, on 2012-September-24, 13:22, said:

The director initially stated that he thought Pass was an LA, but that he would consult with two EBU referees and then decide. He rang back around 20 minutes later with the ruling that Pass was not an LA, so he was presumably persuaded by their arguments, although he can speak for himself as he posted on this thread.

The TD made his own decision about whether pass was a LA. The TD's consultation with a range of players was (in an abbreviated form) to give them the auction, answer any questions about system, state of the match etc and ask them what they would do after the redouble. There was nothing particularly special about two of the players being EBU referees, as such, for the purpose of the consultation - other than they were known to be good players, he had their phone numbers, and by agreeing to be referees they indicated willingness to be phoned up at odd hours and given bidding problems.

FWIW I agree with the ruling. I think some of the posts on this thread are over-thinking things. When simply given as a bidding problem, I bid. So did everyone else I've given the hand too. All those people were prepared to live with the pass of 5S (I had a long discursive answer from one person along the lines of yes I'll pass 5S, they might be making slam, they might be going off in 4S but then again we'll probably be cheap in 7H, maybe I should bid, maybe it's better to pass, OK I'll pass) but I had comments like 'well it's obvious to pull now, isn't it?'. And these were people given it as a problem in passing, without knowing there was a ruling involved.

lamford, on 2012-September-25, 04:47, said:

That would be amusing, classifying the only bid that happened to give NS a chance to win the match as a SEWoG, as Pass would have lost by 5. A bit like VixTD once adjusting the score to what some would have viewed as a SEWoG.

As a logical proposition, I don't see any reason why the only bid that gives a chance to win the match could not be a wild or gambling action. In this case, I don't think the redouble was, but in theory, why not?

lamford, on 2012-September-26, 03:06, said:

I think gordontd's correct exhortation to me, in another posting, to "follow the thread" is in order. You can skip mrdct's contributions with no loss of meaning.But, more relevantly, hands up those who think West's 6H bid is "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of the UI (my emphasis). Or do we now think, much as RMB1 seems to, that Law 73C is just a relic of old laws left in by a printer who did not know that the top two-thirds of the percentage sign meant "delete"? It appears that we are trying to apply Law 73C when we choose, if it any way clashes with 16B, but ignoring it when inconvenient. Applying Law 73C literally would mean that if there was the slightest chance we would pass without the UI, we should pass now.I agree with booting out Law 73C, by the way, and applying Law 16B as it reads to all UI situations.

If you believe that there is no LA to passing, then certainly you are avoiding taking any advantage of the UI, because there's no advantage to be had from it. 73C can come in handy in some UI cases, but I don't see how it can be relevant here.

mycroft, on 2012-September-26, 09:58, said:

Unfortunately, I'm guessing that a lot of them that do would pull 5♠xx in a flash, because that's the way they think - but they're not likely to be peers of Crockfords KO players (although there are many "about US LMs" that think that way. If this particular West is in the LN(ovice) category, or the "don't think about next round" category, I'm probably going to lean to letting the pull go. On the other hand, the fact that West still refused to show his clubs on the pull (what was he going to do when it went 6♥-6♠-x-p?) lends more weight to the "many US LMs" argument).

The Crockfords KO is open - anyone who is a member of the EBU can enter, and this is the first round. So all you know (unless you look the players up, which isn't very difficult as Lamford was one of the teams) is that it is a team who aren't seeded (the 16 seeds don't play the first two rounds) who are interested enough to bother entering a national KO. FWIW I think Lamford's original description as ''reasonable county players' or something is about right, but I have no idea how good a US LM is so I can't help with that comparison.

lamford, on 2012-September-26, 10:09, said:

Was the fact that West would have passed the double of 5S (without the redouble) conveyed to the EBU referees?

Again, rather more people than just two EBU referees were consulted; the consultation was fundamentally about what they would bid on the given auction.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-September-26, 15:45, said:

If you believe that there is no LA to passing, then certainly you are avoiding taking any advantage of the UI, because there's no advantage to be had from it. 73C can come in handy in some UI cases, but I don't see how it can be relevant here.

I think you mean no LA to pulling. The relevance is that 73C seems to impose a more rigorous obligation on the player. If just the people "over-thinking" the problem would pass, then there must be some chance that the West in this example would pass, so pulling is taking some advantage, however small. Effectively 73C changes 16B so that a very small percentage considering pass would make it an LA.

I would expect all EBU TDs and EBU Referees to bid over 5S and pull both the double and redouble. So it is no surprise that they ruled as they did if that is the question they were asked. I think that, however difficult, they should have tried to assess whether Pass was an LA for someone who both passed over 5S and, by her own admission, would have passed 5S doubled. This last is the most important; we have someone who would have chosen to defend 5Sx, and I submit that Pass must be an LA to a peer of that person. All those polled should have been given this material fact.

I also find that the vast majority of people that I give the hand to would pull, maybe 12 out of 13 so far. But they would have all bid on the previous round. The problem is that I need to find people that would a) open 1H, b) pass over 5S and c) pass over a double of 5S (without a redouble). They seem as scarce as hen's teeth, but included my team-mate who conceded -850 and would have pulled a redouble!

[Codo]

TimG, on 2012-September-26, 08:41, said:

Isn't there different information over 5S and 5SXX? When west passed 5S, she didn't know whether or not partner was bidding 5H to make and didn't know whether the opponents were bidding 5S to make or sacrifice or had misjudged and had missed slam. When she next had a chance to call, her partner had doubled suggesting that they had hoped to make 5H and her opponent had doubled suggesting they had a high expectation of making or being down at most one; there is now less danger that the opponents have missed a slam.

At the time of either passing or bidding on over the redouble, West might reasonably expect the result for bidding 6H to be somewhere between -50 and -300; while the result for passing 5SXX to be somewhere between +400 and -1200.

If passing is wrong, the team rates to be -550 (+650 -1200) for a loss of 11 IMPs when they make 5S at the other table, or -1100 (+100 -1200) or -900 (+300 -1200) for a loss of 15 or 14 when they collect a penalty against 6HX at the other table.

If bidding 6H is wrong, the team rates to be -300 (-100 -200) or -500 (-300 -200) for a loss of 7 or 11 IMPs (assuming all contracts will be doubled) when teammates go down in 5S at the other table.

So, when passing 5SXX is wrong, it loses from 11 to 15 IMPs; when bidding 6H is wrong, it loses from 7 to 11 IMPs.

It seems that bidding 6H is the safer option. Maybe this way of thinking isn't quite right, but avoiding the potential for losing 14 or 15 IMPs (if things go really wrong) and instead risking a loss of 7 to 11, seems like something that someone who thinks they are ahead by a bit might want to do.

But really, I think that we have to consider that West has more information upon which to base a decision when the auction comes back around. And, that passing 5S doesn't say that West thinks the best way to win the match is to defend 5S, but rather is just an admission that she has insufficient information to offer a unilateral opinion. She is much better informed after hearing the double and redouble.

So we agree that the XX changes the expactations from 7 to 11 imps to 11 to 15 imps- around 4 imps. (and this is even between undoubled and redoubled. But the player had played 5 ♠ doubled too...This is no reason to change the mind about sacrificing or sitting the redouble due to this expactations.

The difference is only in the new information:
And you can interprete the new information in two ways:
1. Partner is sane and knows what he is doing and the opponents are trying to swing. They would even XX with 6 losers in the sidesuits. I sit for the XX.
Or 2: My partner is an idiot who sometimes doubles with AKxxx in hearts, a side trick and spade chicane. The opps know what they do- they will never XX without knowing/beliving that they are making. They know f.e. that the 4 ♠ bidder is exactly 4-1 in the minors, not 1-4 or 32 or 23. Obvious.

Okay the first scenery is so far fetched, this could never be,so passing is not even an LA. It must be the second scenery.

The descission made by so great TDs scares me. But as the great majority shares their view, it must be my blindness. Would not be the first time, nor the last.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-September-26, 15:45, said:

Again, rather more people than just two EBU referees were consulted; the consultation was fundamentally about what they would bid on the given auction.

Can I take this to mean: "No, the two referees were not told West would have passed 5S doubled" and as far as you were aware nor was anyone else polled? RMB1 may be better placed to answer these questions.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2012-September-26, 05:03, said:

Shocking. To not do your job because it is a major hassle for incompetent scorers! And it certainly is not a major hassle for normal scorers.

Of course it says "may". When a weighted score is inappropriate, you do not give it. So of course you do not say "weighted scores must be given".

But as an excuse for not giving them when they should be given, that's awful.

Perhaps a new thread on the topic of "weighted adjusted scores" needs to be opened, but for goodness sake - enter the real world.

At the last WBF event I attended, the CTD told me that they were generally getting about 3-5 rulings per session that required consultation amongst the other TDs and/or polling; and this was with about 50 tables in play. As far as I know, none of the eventual rulings were weighted scores. Can anyone give me an example of a TD ruling at a WBF event of a weighted score?

There are just handful (or perhaps as many as a dozen or so) of scoring systems in use today worldwide that provide real-time bridge scores to internet audiences, calculate all match results within seconds of the end of a sessions and determine draws, datums and line-up entry seemlessly. The authors of these programs are far from "incompetent scorers" and provide a brilliant service to bridge fans and players alike.

I love the way "should" has strayed back into your definition of when weighted rulings apply when the laws clearly define it as a "may" option for TDs.

I am aware that the scoring software by Jeff Smith used in some EBU tournaments handles weighted scores quite well, but can anyone provide me a link to web results from a serious or semi-serious event using that software where a weighted score was used and the results have been reported in some meanful way? Or you could make it even harder and present a KO matches where averaging of both a split and weighted ruling came into play.

Weighted scores may well be fine for laws theorists in a home game, local competition or club duplicate; but I don't think they work in any serious event for a range of practical reason of which "incompetent scorers" is not one of them.

[bluejak]

That article is the most pitiful excuse for incompetent rulings I have ever read.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 10:41, said:

That article is the most pitiful excuse for incompetent rulings I have ever read.

Answering his questions and pointing out where his reasoning is flawed will leave a better impression.

This is the second time in this thread - on two different subjects - where your response to a logical reasoning is: "I am right because my intuition/experience/gut feeling tells me so and no logical reasoning can change that." One of my kids does that too, but not twice in one thread.

Rik

[bluejak]

If you produce a pointless argument to your kid, which I expect you do not, then I expect he would be justified.

I am sorry, but we have a Law on how to proceed, and I really think that the argument that it is too much work to follow it needs no detailed rebuttal.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 18:31, said:

If you produce a pointless argument to your kid, which I expect you do not, then I expect he would be justified.

I am sorry, but we have a Law on how to proceed, and I really think that the argument that it is too much work to follow it needs no detailed rebuttal.

That's an over-simplification of my argument. Let me bullet point it to make it easier to follow:

• Weighted scores are a "may" requirement under the laws so are at the discretion of the TD;
  
• A TD would take a number of factors into account in deciding whether or not to issue a weighted score (the existance of a number of potential results for which probabilities can be reasonably estimated would obviously be the first one of those factors; but the orderly running of his event would also be taken into account);
  
• Weighted scores are not compatible with most of the real-time or near-real-time scoring systems used in high profile events (I'd be happy to see some examples if that's not the case); and
  
• Weighted scores are rarely, if ever, used at WBF events (I'd be happy to see some examples if they exist).

What bluejak seems to be doing is rewriting Law 16C1c which reads:

Quote

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

to read:

Quote

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, where there are a number of potential results for which the probabilities can be reasonably estimated, an assigned adjusted score should be weighted to reflect the probabilities of those potential results.

[blackshoe]

The capability of the scoring system to provide "instant gratification" to players who want to know their results RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT notwithstanding, a minute or two delay in computing and providing those results isn't going to kill anyone or cause the scoring program to explode. So I think your "not compatible with the scoring system" point is a nonsense.

I'm also not at all sure, as I've said before in this thread, that the discussion of "may", etc. in the Introduction to the laws is intended to apply to anyone other than the players. If the law says a TD "must" do something, and he doesn't, does he get a procedural penalty?

[jallerton]

mrdct, on 2012-September-27, 23:11, said:

That's an over-simplification of my argument. Let me bullet point it to make it easier to follow:

• Weighted scores are a "may" requirement under the laws so are at the discretion of the TD;
  
• A TD would take a number of factors into account in deciding whether or not to issue a weighted score (the existance of a number of potential results for which probabilities can be reasonably estimated would obviously be the first one of those factors; but the orderly running of his event would also be taken into account);
  
• Weighted scores are not compatible with most of the real-time or near-real-time scoring systems used in high profile events (I'd be happy to see some examples if that's not the case); and
  
• Weighted scores are rarely, if ever, used at WBF events (I'd be happy to see some examples if they exist).

What bluejak seems to be doing is rewriting Law 16C1c which reads:

Quote

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

I can't find a subsection [c] within Law 16C1, so you're probably right that such a law is not used in WBF events.

It looks as though you are referring to Law 12C1c, but I think you are incorrect to look at that Law in isolation. You need to read Law 12B1 first to put this into context.

Law 12B1 said:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

In essence, Law 12B1 tells us when to adjust. Law 12C tells us how to adjust.

Law 12C1e states:

Law 12C1e said:

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of [c]:

(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

In areas (including English and WBF events) where the Regulatory Authority has not opted to use any part of Law 12C1e(i) or (ii), then these cannot be used. The way to redress damage as defined in Law 12B1 is to decide what would or might have happened absent the infraction. If there are several possibilities, the only way to achieve "equity" is to weight the score "to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results" as Law 12C1c explains.