[jeffford76]

Today's bulletin from the ACBL NABC is available here. Appeals case 3 on page 12 mentions that they wished they had 12C1C available to weight the score.

However the decision they wish to weight is whether a particular action is a logical alternative. It's otherwise a straightforward UI case - if the action taken is the only LA, table result stands, and otherwise there is a single score to adjust to.

My impression was that weighting scores was for when you didn't know what the result of the hand would be, not for when you weren't sure what the LA's were. In the jurisdictions that use this law, would the committee be allowed to weight on the basis they suggest?

[Edited to fix "splitting" to "weighting" which was what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.]

This post has been edited by jeffford76: 2012-November-29, 15:52

[pran]

jeffford76, on 2012-November-29, 12:41, said:

Today's bulletin from the ACBL NABC is available here. Appeals case 3 on page 12 mentions that they wished they had 12C1C available to split the score.

However the decision they wish to weight is whether a particular action is a logical alternative. It's otherwise a straightforward UI case - if the action taken is the only LA, table result stands, and otherwise there is a single score to adjust to.

My impression was that splitting scores was for when you didn't know what the result of the hand would be, not for when you weren't sure what the LA's were. In the jurisdictions that use this law, would the committee be allowed to split on the basis they suggest?

L12C1C is about weighted score.

This is different from split score which is a score that is different for the two sides (scores do not balance).

A weighted score is a calculated average of several different possible scores, each alternative with a certain probability (or weight) assigned to it.

(A weighted score can also be split in that different weights are applied when calculating the score for each side.)

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2012-November-29, 15:22, said:

L12C1C is about weighted score.

Thanks, I know the difference and just kept typing the wrong word - original post is edited now.

[jallerton]

jeffford76, on 2012-November-29, 12:41, said:

Today's bulletin from the ACBL NABC is available here. Appeals case 3 on page 12 mentions that they wished they had 12C1C available to weight the score.

However the decision they wish to weight is whether a particular action is a logical alternative. It's otherwise a straightforward UI case - if the action taken is the only LA, table result stands, and otherwise there is a single score to adjust to.

My impression was that weighting scores was for when you didn't know what the result of the hand would be, not for when you weren't sure what the LA's were. In the jurisdictions that use this law, would the committee be allowed to weight on the basis they suggest?

[Edited to fix "splitting" to "weighting" which was what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.]

Your impression is correct. The AC is suggesting a Reveley ruling, which is illegal.

If the AC finds that 4♥is the only logical alternative, or that the UI could not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing, the table result should be allowed to stand 100%.

If the AC finds that pass is a logical alternative and than the UI demonstrably suggests bidding on, the assigned score is based on East passing out 4♦ 100% of the time. If the number of tricks 4♦ might make is unclear, then a weighted score would be appropriate, e.g. 75% of 4♦= + 25% of 4♦-1. In this particular case, I'd expect 4♦ to make 10 tricks virtually always, so I'd assign the same 100% of 4♦= for both sides whether weighted scores are allowed or not.

[axman]

jeffford76, on 2012-November-29, 12:41, said:

Today's bulletin from the ACBL NABC is available here. Appeals case 3 on page 12 mentions that they wished they had 12C1C available to weight the score.

However the decision they wish to weight is whether a particular action is a logical alternative. It's otherwise a straightforward UI case - if the action taken is the only LA, table result stands, and otherwise there is a single score to adjust to.

My impression was that weighting scores was for when you didn't know what the result of the hand would be, not for when you weren't sure what the LA's were. In the jurisdictions that use this law, would the committee be allowed to weight on the basis they suggest?

[Edited to fix "splitting" to "weighting" which was what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.]

After reading case 3 I can see no indication that supports your assertion. The reference to 12C1c was solely with regard to adjusting the score. That it was in the same paragraph as a discussion of LA is more a testament to poor grammar than imparting a direct connection between the two.

As to the AC believing that the issues were close, it should be clear that the only logical call was pass.

[Trinidad]

axman, on 2012-November-29, 17:15, said:

After reading case 3 I can see no indication that supports your assertion. The reference to 12C1c was solely with regard to adjusting the score. That it was in the same paragraph as a discussion of LA is more a testament to poor grammar than imparting a direct connection between the two.

As to the AC believing that the issues were close, it should be clear that the only logical call was pass.

I don't know where you got that idea. The AC thought that it was a close call whether pass was an LA. On that, I agree with the AC.

Quote

The committee felt that this was an extremely close decision and wished they could “split the baby” with Law 12C.1.C.

And I also agree with Jeffford76 that the AC was wishing they could make a Reveley ruling, which would be wrong even if they could use 12C1c.

Rik

[axman]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-29, 18:23, said:

I don't know where you got that idea. The AC thought that it was a close call whether pass was an LA. On that, I agree with the AC.


And I also agree with Jeffford76 that the AC was wishing they could make a Reveley ruling, which would be wrong even if they could use 12C1c.

Rik

Of great importance in making inferences from bidding is knowing the agreements to the calls made:

APPEAL CASE 3
Event: Mitchell Open BAM Teams
Session: First qualifying
Subject: Break in Tempo (BIT)

FulvioFantoni
♠9752
♥J
♦8632
♣AK73
Poon Hna____ Kelvin Ng
♠Q8____ ♠AJT6
♥AQ9____ ♥876542
♦A75____ ♦—
♣QJT65____ ♣982
ClaudioNunes
♠K43
♥KT3
♦KQJT94
♣4


West North East South
_________________2♦ (1)
2NT ___3♦ ___3♥ ___4♦
Pass(2) Pass 4♥ Pass
Pass Dbl Pass Pass
Pass
(1) 10-13 HCP, 5 diamonds and a major OR
6-plus diamonds.
(2) Break in tempo.

notably:

2N- for instance, the agreement is not clear as to 2N due to the lack of discussion with regard to 2D= diamonds, 10-13 hcp. Due to the lack of discussion it is reasonable to arrive at a finding that 2N is natural, with D stops [theoretically want better D stops the closer to minimum values]. To put the partnership into the nine trick range against a bidding opponent and no information from partner suggests that the minimum strength for 2N needs to be in the so-called strong NT range. To summarize- it is reasonable to find 2N to promise balanced distribution, diamond stops, and 15+ hcp.

3H- EW assert that they have thought it over [whether by explicit discussion or partnership principles] that 3H promised hearts and game values. Practically speaking, that should include two quick tricks if balanced or as little as 1-1/2 quick tricks unbalanced.

P[of 4D]- suggests minimum values unwilling to promise the kind of defense against 4D that would be expected from 2N; wasted values; less than satisfactory [H] support; give pard the opportunity to better define/evaluate his holdings

On the above basis an analysis of the auction can be made from E viewpoint

2D- S has a decent hand, probably with excellent D

2N- pard has a hand with prospects; my D void duplicates his D values; indicated capacity of the cards 8 tricks, maybe 9 tricks, or hopefully more in H or S; prospects of a difficult to duplicate swing if he has the right cards

3D- the opponents’ D rate to be all but solid

3H- yeah, I know I should have a lot more to GF- a big stretch that can [but probably won’t] get lucky

4D- the honor strength looks to be split about even, probably favoring EW; may not make 9 tricks

P- he’s leaving it up to me; he may only have one trump trick; shouldn’t have three good hearts, probably has a doubleton; eight tricks in H may need me to take a view; spades may be the best spot but too dangerous to take that view; NS may or may not be able to make 4D, so defending is the best opportunity [particularly should W has the SK] for a plus score while it will take a miracle to declare and get plus; 4D is likely to be duplicated even if the other south can’t systemically open a weak 2; I really stretched to force to game in the first place so 4DX may slip a setting trick when pard plays me to have the stuff that I promised; I took a dubious shot hoping to hit partner and didn’t so we probably dodged a bullet

And that is why Pass is the only logical call.


Personally, I am surprised that hearts weren’t held to 9 tricks after S plays the DK at T2; whereupon N breaks his wrist at the same time the S7 hits the table.

[gnasher]

axman, on 2012-November-29, 21:02, said:

P[of 4D]- suggests minimum values unwilling to promise the kind of defense against 4D that would be expected from 2N; wasted values; less than satisfactory [H] support; give pard the opportunity to better define/evaluate his holdings

It might suggest that to you, but I think you would be in a small minority. Given the agreement that 3♥ was game-forcing, the pass of 4♦ simply shows uncertainty about whether to bid 4♥ (to make) or to defend 4♦x. It certanly doesn't imply a minimum.

[Zelandakh]

I wonder if it was stated that pass-pull was weaker than a direct 4♥ when taking the poll. Looking over the case one can see why some pairs play dubious but unusual methods and, indeed, why Fred, et al are against more freedom of regulation. It seems to me that the TD and (half of the) AC are essentially saying that E-W are lying that 3♥ is GF and sets up a FP. It would have been nice to have asked East why he chose not to bid 3♦ or 4♦. It is also pretty clear that the "split the baby" comment was suggesting a Reveley.

Incidentally, does anyone doubt that if E-W had been, say, Meckwell that the AC ruling would have gone in their favour since everyone knows that they are in perfect agreement on their methods? Yes, this is a link back to the thread about evening the playing field between opponents who are perceived to be of different strengths.

[Trinidad]

Your [edit: axman's] analysis is flawed. The short analysis is: Good opponents bid to 4♦, despite partner's stop. Partner did not double 4♦. He is not eager to defend. I certainly don't want to defend 4♦. Therefore, I bid 4♥.

The question is whether pass is an LA. And that indeed is a difficult one. The question whether pass is "the only logical call" is easy. It certainly is not. With a void in opponents' suit and both sides with a fit, pass is rarely "the only logical call". This case is no exception.

Rik

[bluejak]

There seem to be two separate issues here.

A TD or AC has to decide whether an action is an LA or not. He cannot "weight" that because weighting applies to adjustments. That is not an adjustment, it is a finding of fact. Findings of fact are indivisible. To try to divide such an action is not a Reveley ruling, it is a failure to understand the distinction between adjustments and findings of fact.

When a TD or AC has decided to adjust, the norm under Law 12C1C is to weight the adjustment. However, you may not use an illegal action as part of the weighting. To do so is a Reveley ruling.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-November-30, 13:18, said:

There seem to be two separate issues here.

A TD or AC has to decide whether an action is an LA or not. He cannot "weight" that because weighting applies to adjustments. That is not an adjustment, it is a finding of fact. Findings of fact are indivisible. To try to divide such an action is not a Reveley ruling, it is a failure to understand the distinction between adjustments and findings of fact.

When a TD or AC has decided to adjust, the norm under Law 12C1C is to weight the adjustment. However, you may not use an illegal action as part of the weighting. To do so is a Reveley ruling.

I cannot help feeling that this is directly contrary to your statement in the thread about the slow Ace? (The illegal action there was the long hesitation before following suit with a singleton.)

[jallerton]

Sven: are you trying to compare this UI case with an illegal deception case?

Bluejak's statement (which you have highlighted in red) is relevant in all cases, but perhaps you are misunderstanding the application of this principle.

In all cases, you need to ask yourself.

1. What was the infraction?
2. What would/might have happened had the infraction not occurred?

In a UI case, the infraction (assuming there was one) was not the UI itself, it was the action taken by the player in possession of the UI. That is a breach of Laws 16A/73C, so the TD should not assign any weighting to a putative auction in which the player makes the same call or play at that stage.

In an illegal deception case, the infraction was the illegal deception itself. When assigning an adjusted score, the TD might decide that there is still a possibility that his/her opponent would have found the same play anyway. If so, assigning a weighting to the same result that occurred at the table is appropriate.

In a misinformation case, the infraction was the misinformation itself. When assigning an adjusted score, the TD might decide that there is still a possibility that his/her opponent would have found the same call or play anyway. If so, assigning a weighting to the same result that occurred at the table is appropriate.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2012-December-02, 02:51, said:

[...]
In a UI case, the infraction (assuming there was one) was not the UI itself, it was the action taken by the player in possession of the UI. That is a breach of Laws 16A/73C, so the TD should not assign any weighting to a putative auction in which the player makes the same call or play at that stage.
[...]

This is true if the call selected as a result of UI becomes the final contract.

However, if the auction continues and the final contract has (probably) been influenced by the UI but with a certain probability would have been reached also without using the UI, then this alternative cannot be disregarded when calculated a weighted score.

Say that a pair reaches a favourable slam after UI has been used. Without the UI there is still a 50% probability that the slam would have been reached. Do you adjust to game or do you award a weighted score 50% game and 50% slam?

That is why I feel that his absolute statement is a contradiction on his own statement in a different thread.

[blackshoe]

If there is a 50% (or any less than 100%) probability the slam would be bid anyway, there is doubt that it would be bid. Benefit of the doubt goes to the NOS. So you don't include the slam possibility in the weighting, at least not at 50%. 40% maybe.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-02, 08:09, said:

If there is a 50% (or any less than 100%) probability the slam would be bid anyway, there is doubt that it would be bid. Benefit of the doubt goes to the NOS. So you don't include the slam possibility in the weighting, at least not at 50%. 40% maybe.

IMO any doubt must be reflected when assessing the probabilities. Once these have been set then they must be used (without any change because of the irregularity) when calculating the weighted score. (Remember that probabilities must always add up to 100% for the calculation of a weighted score.)

Only if the administration has prescribed Law 12C1{e} may the Director (and AC) completely discard the alternative suggested by UI, but that is because weighted scores are discouraged or prohibited by such administration.

[blackshoe]

Prohibited, but that's a minor detail. As to assessing probabilities, I don't understand what you're saying. If the probability of getting to slam is 50%, then giving that possibility a 40% weighting to reflect the "benefit of the doubt" does not change the fact that the probability of getting to slam is 50%.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-02, 08:46, said:

Prohibited, but that's a minor detail. As to assessing probabilities, I don't understand what you're saying. If the probability of getting to slam is 50%, then giving that possibility a 40% weighting to reflect the "benefit of the doubt" does not change the fact that the probability of getting to slam is 50%.

Let me put it this way:
If slam would be reached regardless of the UI then the probability for the slam alternative is 100%. This is one way of stating that the UI made no difference even if the path to slam would have been different without the UI. In such cases I don't think it is correct to adjust because of UI. Instead proper analysis should reveal that although there might be different alternatives for the intermediate calls, some of which could demonstrably be suggested by UI, there is no alternative to the final contract.

If we consider that slam should certainly be bid but estimate that there was a 10% probability this might me missed by the class of player involved, and that the UI removed any doubt about bidding slam, then we give the slam alternative 90% weight.

[jallerton]

We don't adjust to what would/might have happened had there been no hesitation (or other UI).

We adjust to what would/might have happened had the hesitator's partner chosen a call compliant with Laws 16A/73C.

In the case referred to at the start of this thread, it's not possible for E/W to arrive in 4♥ by another route. Either the 4♥ bid is judged to be legal (in which case the table result stands) or it isn't, in which case East should have passed out 4♦; this being the third consecutive pass, 4♦ is deemed to be the final contract in computing the assigned score.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-December-02, 11:18, said:

Let me put it this way:
If slam would be reached regardless of the UI then the probability for the slam alternative is 100%. This is one way of stating that the UI made no difference even if the path to slam would have been different without the UI. In such cases I don't think it is correct to adjust because of UI. Instead proper analysis should reveal that although there might be different alternatives for the intermediate calls, some of which could demonstrably be suggested by UI, there is no alternative to the final contract.

If we consider that slam should certainly be bid but estimate that there was a 10% probability this might me missed by the class of player involved, and that the UI removed any doubt about bidding slam, then we give the slam alternative 90% weight.

In the scenario in your first paragraph, it seems to me you're saying there should be no adjustment because there was no damage. That's fine.

jallerton, on 2012-December-02, 17:18, said:

We don't adjust to what would/might have happened had there been no hesitation (or other UI).

We adjust to what would/might have happened had the hesitator's partner chosen a call compliant with Laws 16A/73C.

In the case referred to at the start of this thread, it's not possible for E/W to arrive in 4♥ by another route. Either the 4♥ bid is judged to be legal (in which case the table result stands) or it isn't, in which case East should have passed out 4♦; this being the third conecutive pass, 4♦ is deemed to be the final contract in computing the assigned score.

I approve this message.