[Xiaolongnu]

When a pair "uses UI" to reach a contract (that ends in a good result for them), when is the score weighted and when is it not?

I give the following simple example. 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (3♠) BIT Pass Pass 4♥. The 4♥ makes in distribution, resulting in a (potential) double swing. A poll of 8 players show that 4 of them would pass and the other 4 would go ahead to the 4 level. How do you rule?

According to 16B1a, any action that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI may not be chosen among logical alternatives. Signing off or even passing is clearly a logical alternative, which, according to the White Book 16.3, is not allowed to be part of the weighted score. However, in 12.1.4 of the White Book it is stated that a Director should only give one adjustment rather than a weighted score when he is confident that he knows the outcome without the irregularity. Finally, to make things worse, 1 in 2 is obviously clearly a logical alternative. So what does the Director do in such a situation? Which logic is correct?

1. Consider both pass and 4♥ as LA's and forbid the 4♥ bid. Then, consequently, adjust to 3♠ making whatever.
2. Give a weighted score of 75% of 3♠ making whatever and 25% of 4♥ making, that is, follow the result of the poll giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt.

My view in the light of fairness (wording of the laws temporarily aside for this purpose) is that it should be option 2. This could be altered further when in the opinion of the Director, there was a greater problem, and could even have an additional disciplinary penalty in an extreme situation, for example, experienced players blatantly giving and making use of UI. That aside, however, sometimes just because partner has given UI does not always necessarily warrant penalizing the pair by "forcing" them to lose 13 imps straight.

The advantage of weighted scores is that we could reflect the possibility that it is rather likely that the OS might have taken the forbidden action anyway. Some Directors call it "just bridge". I agree. UI could sometimes be a knee jerk reaction, a reflex that comes automatically to us when partner does something horribly wrong, we have all been through that. Perhaps we could consider a hypothetical term like "unintended UI" like the way we have unintended bids? Then again, Directors are not exactly supposed to adjust score based on the possibility that rectification prescribed is in his opinion too unduly severe. Many rules seem to be both working together but also in conflict here at the same time. I could even bring in 23 when the situation calls for it. Could we have a more universal and canonical way to deal with this situation, step by step, what should the Director do? For those who are not convinced, how about the result of the poll being 25% in favour of passing and 75% in favour of bidding on instead? Then passing is still an LA. But it is obvious that the "majority" would act on this board.

[billw55]

I think ruling #1 is clear.

The question of weighting would be among -140, -170, etc for defending 3♠.

[blackshoe]

It is an error to include the table result in your weighting if you are adjusting because UI was used to arrive at that result. You have decided that bidding 4♥ was an infraction, so in your weighting you include only results that might have happened without the infraction.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-16, 16:01, said:

It is an error to include the table result in your weighting if you are adjusting because UI was used to arrive at that result. You have decided that bidding 4♥ was an infraction, so in your weighting you include only results that might have happened without the infraction.

...which, then again, can include results of 4♥, if that contract might be reached in some other way than the -illegal- way that was used at the table.

(For completeness and to add to the confusion )

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-16, 17:19, said:

...which, then again, can include results of 4♥, if that contract might be reached in some other way than the -illegal- way that was used at the table.

Rik

These situations are rare, though.

[Rossoneri]

You've already stated the law, and the law is clear, the player in receipt of UI from his partner may not choose the action suggested by UI if there are other logical alternatives. The guidelines to what is a logical alternatives are pretty standard as well. Hence, a certain action taken is either allowed or disallowed. If it is disallowed, why would you be allowing a non-zero probability of it in your final weighing?

You can argue how without the UI, the player might have bid on a certain percentage of the time anyway. True, but the law is clear that the action suggested will be disallowed, and why not? It is not that clear how you are going to work out such probabilities and why should you allow the offending side to potentially benefit? But I digress.

[Xiaolongnu]

Confusion and equity are the key words here, which inspired my discussion. Which is the real equity?

On one hand, it is clear, at least by my understanding, which I see several agreements here, that 16B1a clearly states that action suggested is illegal, which in turn, implies that 12 forbids the consequently illegal result from being tabulated. However, the Director is primarily meant to restore equity, not to penalize people, at least, not primarily. Suppose most people would have bid 4♥, then wouldn't 4♥ be the "equity"?

I think that a weighted score that includes 4♥ in this situation would have been already rectification for the infraction, as without the infraction it is judged that the OS would land in this contract most of the time anyway, so in some sense the NOS have already gotten "a little bit more than equity", using sympathetic weighting, and if the Director is still not convinced, he could always penalize the OS further by docking their final VP score or whatever. Of course, this is assuming that the majority of the poll decided the forward going action, if the poll had been more than 60% for passing, then fair, we should give the NOS the benefit of the doubt and give the full adjustment. I am just not convinced that giving the OS a full double swing against them and a few extra VP's bonus to the NOS is the "equity", but I am probably wrong when the "correct contract" for the OS is 4♥, may I clarify this please?

Then again, another view that I have heard is that the Director should just do the full adjustment and leave it to the OS to appeal for a weighted score and in that situation, leave it to the AC.

Clarification. I am not posting because I am certain or even fairly certain that my view is right. I am posting because I am not an experienced Director and different Directors are telling me different views about this, so I want to ask for advice and try to determine which is "more right". It is my view, however, that the NOS should not benefit too much from the infraction, in this case, should not get a double swing that they, by equity, do not "deserve" in percentage.

[blackshoe]

What is "equity"? I would say it's the expected score that would have been obtained by the NOS if there had been no infraction. So if you decide that the table arrived at a particular final contract through an infraction, the result from the play of that contract can have no part in equity. Since the purpose of weighted scores is to "do equity", the inclusion of a result from a contract that was reached unlawfully can have no part in the weighting. If it did, the OS would benefit, in however small a way, from their infraction, and this is contrary to the objectives of score adjustment stated in Law 12B1.

The director should make the best ruling, including the best weighting, if weighting is appropriate, that he can. It is a dereliction of duty for a director to fail to at least try to do this (even if the AC later arrives at a different result) and then rely on an appeal to "fix" it. This was nonetheless "policy" many years ago. It is now deprecated, though some TDs still seem to think (wrongly, because the WBF has said so) it's the correct way to rule.

[Oof Arted]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-16, 23:09, said:

What is "equity"? I would say it's the expected score that would have been obtained by the NOS if there had been no infraction. So if you decide that the table arrived at a particular final contract through an infraction, the result from the play of that contract can have no part in equity. Since the purpose of weighted scores is to "do equity", the inclusion of a result from a contract that was reached unlawfully can have no part in the weighting. If it did, the OS would benefit, in however small a way, from their infraction, and this is contrary to the objectives of score adjustment stated in Law 12B1.

The director should make the best ruling, including the best weighting, if weighting is appropriate, that he can. It is a dereliction of duty for a director to fail to at least try to do this (even if the AC later arrives at a different result) and then rely on an appeal to "fix" it. This was nonetheless "policy" many years ago. It is now deprecated, though some TDs still seem to think (wrongly, because the WBF has said so) it's the correct way to rule.

I think I am with Ed on this 1

You cannot by law Profit from using UI therefore the 4♥ never takes place put it back to last legal bid; as for weighting It has not taken place (Legally) so you cannot include it

But bite the bullet just pull it back to the last 'Legal bid' decide outcome of that Then Fine the transgressors 10%

[bluejak]

Equity does not include illegal results. Results which are illegal under Law 16B cannot be included in an equity based ruling. So while the norm is to weight results, the exception is that you may not include results which would be reached illegally. Giving such an adjustment is known as a Reveley ruling.