[jallerton]

The EBL appeals from San Remo 2009 included a case with the following details:

Declarer (West) was in 6♦ and went 1 off. One defender had taken a long time to make a discard 8 at trick and declarer claimed that he had been deceived by the tempo of the discard and that we would have found the winning line otherwise.

The Director did not believe that the defender had a valid bridge reason for his pause but decided that West still had a chance of getting it wrong.

TD's Ruling:
North/South receive:
30% of 6♦-1 by West (NS +50)
plus 70% of 6♦= by West (NS —920)
East/West receive:
33.3% of NS +50
plus 66.7% of NS -920

North/South appealed. The AC amended the ruling to:

The Committee’s decision:
Director's ruling adjusted:
No change for North/South
East/West receive:
50% of NS +50
plus 50% of NS -920

I have not given the full hand as my questions pertain to the principle of weighting the score. My questions are:

1. What is the legal basis for assigning non-balancing weightings in this situation?

2. If it is legal to do this, why would the TD want to award such similar, but not identical, weightings in such a case?

[Bbradley62]

So, N/S appealed and the committee didn't change their score but decreased the score for E/W?

[Trinidad]

 jallerton, on 2011-May-11, 16:24, said:

1. What is the legal basis for assigning non-balancing weightings in this situation?

I can't come up with one. I think it is illegal. I can only see a reason for this when the NOS had a SEWoG (which doesn't seem to be the case here).

Quote

2. If it is legal to do this, why would the TD want to award such similar, but not identical, weightings in such a case?

If it would be legal (under a different set of Laws), I would certainly not claim that my judgement in weighting had an accuracy of 3%. Or, to put it differently: If I would perceive that there should be a difference in the weighting of 3%, then I would judge that the difference is too small to detect. Since I cannot detect a difference, the weightings are assumed to be equal and I would give equal weightings.

Rik

[pran]

 jallerton, on 2011-May-11, 16:24, said:

The EBL appeals from San Remo 2009 included a case with the following details:

Declarer (West) was in 6♦ and went 1 off. One defender had taken a long time to make a discard 8 at trick and declarer claimed that he had been deceived by the tempo of the discard and that we would have found the winning line otherwise.

The Director did not believe that the defender had a valid bridge reason for his pause but decided that West still had a chance of getting it wrong.

TD's Ruling:
North/South receive:
30% of 6♦-1 by West (NS +50)
plus 70% of 6♦= by West (NS —920)
East/West receive:
33.3% of NS +50
plus 66.7% of NS -920

North/South appealed. The AC amended the ruling to:

The Committee’s decision:
Director's ruling adjusted:
No change for North/South
East/West receive:
50% of NS +50
plus 50% of NS -920

I have not given the full hand as my questions pertain to the principle of weighting the score. My questions are:

1. What is the legal basis for assigning non-balancing weightings in this situation?

2. If it is legal to do this, why would the TD want to award such similar, but not identical, weightings in such a case?

1: Law 12C1f:
The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

2: If my calculation is correct:
the Director awarded adjusted scores -629 for NS and +596 for EW
the AC maintained the adjusted score -629 for NS but awarded +435 for EW

These adjusted scores must reflect the principles in law 12C1e:
(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.

Note that while Law 12C1c which concerns weighted scores contains no such clauses like "most favourable" or "most unfavourable" for the two sides the Director (and AC) may still apply similar principles when assessing the results to be assigned for each side in order to do equity.

Apparently the Director and the AC had different views on the probability that declarer would have found the successful play but not on what should be considered the reasonably unfavourable result for the offending side.

(A side note: I would never dream of varying weighted scores in steps smaller than 10%)

[mjj29]

 pran, on 2011-May-11, 17:19, said:

2: If my calculation is correct:
the Director awarded adjusted scores -629 for NS and +596 for EW
the AC maintained the adjusted score -629 for NS but awarded +435 for EW

(except those would be percentages post-IMPing, rather than on the raw scores, so if the other table is -920 that would be 70% of 0 and 30% of +14 for +4.2 to NS, etc)

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-May-11, 17:19, said:

These adjusted scores must reflect the principles in law 12C1e:

If they've used 12C1c (to give weighted scores) and 12C1e (to give split scores) then they've done it wrong. The laws only give the RA the power to use 12C1e in place of 12C1c, so they can't use both.

[blackshoe]

This points out one of the major problems with rulings, as I see it: neither directors nor ACs consistently specify under which laws they are ruling. I think that's an error.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-11, 17:55, said:

This points out one of the major problems with rulings, as I see it: neither directors nor ACs consistently specify under which laws they are ruling. I think that's an error.

In the EBU if a ruling comes to Appeal the director is asked on the form to specify under which law they made their ruling. It's also standard practice to specify it during the consultation process before giving a ruling.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-May-11, 17:48, said:

If they've used 12C1c (to give weighted scores) and 12C1e (to give split scores) then they've done it wrong. The laws only give the RA the power to use 12C1e in place of 12C1c, so they can't use both.

They obviously used Law 12C1c to give weighted scores, but they used Law 12C1f, not 12C1e to give split scores (in order to do equity).

As Law 12C1f does not elaborate on any principles for awarding split scores I see every reason to adapt the principles laid out in Law 12C1e, but of course not applied to the extreme as specified in this law (which they didn't).

[gordontd]

 campboy, on 2011-May-11, 17:48, said:

If they've used 12C1c (to give weighted scores) and 12C1e (to give split scores) then they've done it wrong. The laws only give the RA the power to use 12C1e in place of 12C1c, so they can't use both.

Well 12C1e does say:

Quote

may apply all or part of
the following procedure

(my emphasis)
though I can't imagine why anyone would think it appropriate to apply it as they did.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2011-May-12, 02:15, said:

Well 12C1e does say:

Quote

may apply all or part of
the following procedure

(my emphasis)
though I can't imagine why anyone would think it appropriate to apply it as they did.

Law 12C1f is not a "part of the following procedure" as specified in Law 12C1e, it is a general option applicable to Law 12C as a whole.

The Director is free to award both weighted (Law 12C1c) and split (Law 12C1f) scores whenever he awards adjusted scores. (Before 2007 the option to award weighted scores was only available to an AC).

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2011-May-12, 02:31, said:

Law 12C1f is not a "part of the following procedure" as specified in Law 12C1e,

I don't believe I commented on Law 12C1f. However, since you seem very keen on it, I'll comment now that I don't think that Law 12C1f means that you can just issue split scores whenever you feel like it without regard to the rest of Law 12.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2011-May-12, 02:06, said:

they used Law 12C1f, not 12C1e to give split scores

From where do you get this information, that you assert with such authority?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2011-May-12, 02:47, said:

I don't believe I commented on Law 12C1f. However, since you seem very keen on it, I'll comment now that I don't think that Law 12C1f means that you can just issue split scores whenever you feel like it without regard to the rest of Law 12.

Of course not.

But Law 12C1f is the law that allows split scores, I have only referred to Law 12C1e for an example on the principles that would normally apply for awarding split scores.

The Director and AC are of course bound by the entire Law 12 whenever they feel the need or desire to award any adjusted score.

[qwery_hi]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-11, 17:55, said:

This points out one of the major problems with rulings, as I see it: neither directors nor ACs consistently specify under which laws they are ruling. I think that's an error.

That's news to me! I'm sentencing you to life without parole. Under which law, I will not say.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2011-May-12, 02:49, said:

pran said:

they used Law 12C1f, not 12C1e to give split scores

From where do you get this information, that you assert with such authority?

Your quote was incomplete, this is what I wrote:

pran said:

They obviously used Law 12C1c to give weighted scores, but they used Law 12C1f, not 12C1e to give split scores (in order to do equity).

And I consider it obvious that they used Law 12C1f because that law (together with Law 12C1e) is the only law that allows unbalanced (i.e. split) scores. And it is clear that they didn't use Law 12C1e because this law does not authorize weighted scores.

[VixTD]

 jallerton, on 2011-May-11, 16:24, said:

1. What is the legal basis for assigning non-balancing weightings in this situation?

2. If it is legal to do this, why would the TD want to award such similar, but not identical, weightings in such a case?

The only situation I can think of where one might do this is one of TD error, weightings might be given which favour both sides (law 82C).

[axman]

 pran, on 2011-May-12, 03:41, said:

Your quote was incomplete, this is what I wrote:

And I consider it obvious that they used Law 12C1f because that law (together with Law 12C1e) is the only law that allows unbalanced (i.e. split) scores. And it is clear that they didn't use Law 12C1e because this law does not authorize weighted scores.

If, say for instance that , a ruling is made [eg split score] for the reason that the TD felt like it, one might draw the conclusion that it was based upon one passage of law rather than some different one because of what the ruling looked like. But, in fact the ruling was by happenstance [not by design of law], so it was your misintrepretation that brought you to your conclusion- for should you had known the truth your conclusion should have been that the TD did not base the ruling upon any law.

[campboy]

The TD probably just wanted to test out his scoring software

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-11, 17:55, said:

This points out one of the major problems with rulings, as I see it: neither directors nor ACs consistently specify under which laws they are ruling. I think that's an error.

The appeals form does have a section for "Relevant Laws". In the write-up only "Law 73F" is mentioned.

 pran, on 2011-May-12, 02:06, said:

They obviously used Law 12C1c to give weighted scores, but they used Law 12C1f, not 12C1e to give split scores (in order to do equity).

As Law 12C1f does not elaborate on any principles for awarding split scores I see every reason to adapt the principles laid out in Law 12C1e, but of course not applied to the extreme as specified in this law (which they didn't).

Let's have a look at Law 12C1c and try to apply it to this case.

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.

What did the AC consider to be the probability of the potential result of 6♦=? What did the AC consider to be the probability of the potential result of 6♦-1?

The AC ruling for N/S is consistent with 6♦ being judged as would have made 70% of the time.

The AC ruling for E/W is consistent with 6♦ being judged as would have made 50% of the time and hence seems to be inconsistent with the ruling given for N/S.

What am I missing?