[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 10:41, said:

If you all would have done something else over 5♠ and are using that as part of the basis of your ruling, then you are not considering whether passing 5♠XX is an LA for a player who was willing to defend 5♠.

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

[lalldonn]

bluejak, on 2012-September-25, 16:48, said:

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

This is what you said.

Quote

All four of us would have bid 6♣ directly over 5♠ and considered nothing else.

All four of us would have bid 6♣ over the redouble and considered nothing else.

I do not believe pass is an LA and no longer consider it close.

I assumed that you made all these statements for a reason that was relevant to the ruling, and in particular that your conclusion was supported by the statements that preceeded it. If that is untrue then I appologize for my incorrect assumption.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-September-25, 16:48, said:

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

Could you maybe expand a little and enlighten us why you think that someone who initially thought that passing 5♠ was best, would be so sure to bid 6♥/♣ after partner has doubled 5♠ (and a gambling opponent has redoubled) that not only
1) bidding 6♥/♣ is suddenly better than passing, but that
2) passing would be so absurd that it is not even an LA anymore?

I can think of arguments why bidding 6♥/♣ now is better than the round before, but these arguments are not so strong that it takes pass out of the picture as an LA.

Rik

[dwar0123]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-25, 17:22, said:

Could you maybe expand a little and enlighten us why you think that someone who initially thought that passing 5♠ was best, would be so sure to bid 6♥/♣ after partner has doubled 5♠ (and a gambling opponent has redoubled) that not only
1) bidding 6♥/♣ is suddenly better than passing, but that
2) passing would be so absurd that it is not even an LA anymore?

As I understand the arguments that west gave herself.

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled

3. There is no way we can lose going down in 6♥

Passing when you think there is a small chance of losing a match vs bidding and having no chance of losing = not a LA

[lalldonn]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-25, 17:43, said:

As I understand the arguments that west gave herself.

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled

3. There is no way we can lose going down in 6♥

Passing when you think there is a small chance of losing a match vs bidding and having no chance of losing = not a LA

Or west might realize that she has a partner who would have said to himself...

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled, which can only happen if I double

3. I am so sure doubling is right that I am going to double anyway

I mean, is west's argument that her partner does not exist? That seems to be what it amounts to.

[mrdct]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-25, 12:49, said:

Usually, when we are talking about SEWoGs, we are discussing errors made after the infraction and not before. After all, errors made prior to the infraction already are supposed to have inflicted their own damage.

I would rule that pass is an LA for West and assign a weighted score based on what I think the probability is that East is running. If that probability is high, this may indeed lead to an overall result that is worse then the result NS would have gotten if South would have passed the double. In that case, it would be justified to call the redouble an error.

But is isn't a SEWoG in the sense of Law 12, since the damage that was done (going from a potential score of 5♠XX making or 6♥X-1 to a certain score of 6♥X-1 only) is 100% caused by the infraction.

Rik

The SEWoG provisions come into play after an "irregularity" not an "infraction". Reaching for the bidding box and not pulling something out of it is an irregularity. I'm still calling SEWoG on the redouble which imho is a ridiculous call virtually certain to push the opponents into a cheap 6♥ save.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2012-September-25, 10:36, said:

This means that such scores may be weighted or split. Furthermore, the norm is for it to be weighted. It is [should be] unusual for it to be a single score.

It is my view, based on my reading of the Laws, that the same should apply to any other non-Law 12C1E jurisdiction, which I believe [though am not sure] applies to everywhere outside the ACBL. However, I think weighted scores have not been understood properly by some jurisdictions, which is why they are quite rare in some places, and in some places they may only be given by ACs, which is both illegal and ridiculous.

The issuing of weighted scores (in jurisdictions that allow it) is a "may" requirement, not a "should", "shall" or "must". There is no obligation on TDs to issue weighted rulings and many (if not most) choose not to as they are a major hassle for scorers.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2012-September-25, 20:22, said:

The issuing of weighted scores (in jurisdictions that allow it) is a "may" requirement, not a "should", "shall" or "must". There is no obligation on TDs to issue weighted rulings and many (if not most) choose not to as they are a major hassle for scorers.

Quote

Law 16C1:
{c} 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.
{d} If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

The law does say "may", but it seems to me that when there are multiple potential results, a weighted score should be the norm. It also seems to me that failing to award a weighted score simply to make things easy for the scorer is not ruling in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws. Also, it seems to me, a scorer should be able to compute scores manually when necessary, even if he has a computer program to do it for him most of the time. Heck, somebody could write a simple program to compute weighted scores if the scoring program doesn't support them. Or one could use a spreadsheet.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-25, 20:50, said:

The law does say "may", but it seems to me that when there are multiple potential results, a weighted score should be the norm. It also seems to me that failing to award a weighted score simply to make things easy for the scorer is not ruling in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws. Also, it seems to me, a scorer should be able to compute scores manually when necessary, even if he has a computer program to do it for him most of the time. Heck, somebody could write a simple program to compute weighted scores if the scoring program doesn't support them. Or one could use a spreadsheet.

Who's to say what the spirit of the laws are? All we know is the laws of bridge make quite a big deal about the subtle differences between may, should, shall and must and the lawmakers intentionally chose "may" for the option to issue a weighted score. To my mind it is entirely at the TD's discretion and it's quite reasonable to take into account limitations of the scoring system, the completeness and accuracy of published results and the smooth running of an event in deciding whether or to issue a weighted score.

If the lawmakers had used "should" I would probably be agreeing with you, but "may" imparts "failure to do it is not wrong".

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2012-September-25, 21:56, said:

Who's to say what the spirit of the laws are? All we know is the laws of bridge make quite a big deal about the subtle differences between may, should, shall and must and the lawmakers intentionally chose "may" for the option to issue a weighted score. To my mind it is entirely at the TD's discretion and it's quite reasonable to take into account limitations of the scoring system, the completeness and accuracy of published results and the smooth running of an event in deciding whether or to issue a weighted score.

If the lawmakers had used "should" I would probably be agreeing with you, but "may" imparts "failure to do it is not wrong".

Hm. By this logic, if the TD fails to do something the laws say he "shall" do, the TD should receive a PP "more often than not". The fact that this conclusion makes no sense leads me to believe that the discussion of the meanings of those various words is directed at players, not TDs. I will stipulate, of course, that the law is not explicit on that point.

[dwar0123]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 17:55, said:

Or west might realize that she has a partner who would have said to himself...

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled, which can only happen if I double

3. I am so sure doubling is right that I am going to double anyway

I mean, is west's argument that her partner does not exist? That seems to be what it amounts to.

Your logic has a massive hole in it.

Let me fix step two for you.

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled, which can only happen if I double and then pass the redouble, which I will never do, so it is safe to double.

[lalldonn]

What? Lol I don't even know how to seriously answer that, it's total nonsense. So west knows that east doesn't mean it when he doubles? East, in this match where his goal at this point is to just not blow it, is willing to double 5♠ even though he has so little confidence they are down that he will run if they redouble? West is going to argue it's not an LA to pass 5♠XX even though he apparently knows his partner won't pass it out anyway unless he is 100%? East is going to take the chance this his partner will not pass in tempo over a redouble and then try to argue it's not an LA to pass a redouble of something he doubled?

[campboy]

mrdct, on 2012-September-25, 20:18, said:

The SEWoG provisions come into play after an "irregularity" not an "infraction". Reaching for the bidding box and not pulling something out of it is an irregularity. I'm still calling SEWoG on the redouble which imho is a ridiculous call virtually certain to push the opponents into a cheap 6♥ save.

Neither "an irregularity" nor "an infraction" in fact, but "the irregularity" which is to say the irregularity which causes us to adjust the score. We are not adjusting (if we adjust at all) because of East's actions, which did not themselves damage NS, but because of the 6♥ bid, so the redouble was not subsequent to the irregularity in question. (I also agree with Lamford that the redouble, being necessary to win the match, can't be SEWoG anyway.)

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 17:55, said:

I mean, is west's argument that her partner does not exist? That seems to be what it amounts to.

How about the fact that West opened the hand because of extra shape, not strength? He thinks his partner is counting on him for defensive tricks that he doesn't have. He was willing to let the opponents play 5♠; maybe they'll make, maybe they'll go down. But the redouble suggests that they've got freakish shape, too, and letting them make that could be really painful. So now he has to let partner know that his ODR is too high to defend.

They say you should trust partner, not the opponents. But in this case, the opponent was right. Although I'd like to know what possessed South to redouble with four garbage clubs. Change North's minors to ♦xx ♣Qxx and they're going down 1 or 2 (but maybe North would only have bid 3♠ with that hand).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-September-26, 01:44, said:

Although I'd like to know what possessed South to redouble with four garbage clubs.

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.

[Codo]

I red more that once that the danger of losing the match was the reason to pull.

So lets look at the numbers:

Lets assume that they always double 6 ♥ and will never bid 6♠. If you want to calculate other cases too, do it.

If we make 6 ♥ and they make 5 ♠, we will lose 18 imps by passing 5 ♠ and 20 if we pass 5 ♠ XX.
If we make 6♥ and they fail in 5♠, we will lose 15 imps by passing 5 ♠ and 13 if we pass 5 ♠ XX
If we fail by one trick and they make, pasing will lose 11 imps w/o and 15 imps with the XX.
If we fail by two tricks and they make,passing lose lose 8 imps w/o and 14 imps with the XX.

If we make 6 ♥ and they fail to make 5 ♠,passing will lose 15 imps at 5 ♠, 13 imps while passing 5 ♠XX.
If we fail one trick and they do to, passing will win 5 imps without the redouble and 11 imps with it.
If we fail two tricks and they one, passing will win 9 imps without the XX but 12 with it.

So to bid 6 ♥ over 5 ♠ has a variance between +18 and -9 imps. If we face the same descission after the XX, the possible outcomes are between + 20 and -12 imps. No big deal. And this is true for any given scenario. The descission to bid 6 ♥ is crutial, but it had been crutial before the XX, imp wise the XX did not changed a lot.

East already passed 5 ♠ for a reason. He belived that defending 5 ♠ is the winning strategy. Most of us don't share this view. But as East made the descission to pass 5 ♠, he already took the risk to lose the match. If his descission was wrong, he had lost, it is as simple as that. His descission was very important when he had a descission to make over 5 ♠. Now the descission is just a little more important. The difference in total imps is very small- if you lose 32 or 29 imps because of a wrong descission does not make a big difference at all.

So you may say, that these are the wrong numbers to compute, you need to decide between -650 and -1200. (11 imps) No sorry, you don't. You need to compare the result of your descission with the one at the other table. So whatever will happen there- whether it is right to sacrifice or not- must be compared with or without the XX. And the XX makes at most a difference of 6 imps.

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.

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 17:12, said:

This is what you said.

I assumed that you made all these statements for a reason that was relevant to the ruling, and in particular that your conclusion was supported by the statements that preceeded it. If that is untrue then I appologize for my incorrect assumption.

You are making the mistake which I am afraid too many people make, and we have discussed only recently. You think that you poll then you add up numbers and rule. That is wrong. You poll to aid your judgement, and then you judge using results from the poll to aid you.

My conclusion is supported by the results of the poll: it became obvious to me how little anyone want to defend agaisnt a 5♠ contract, and the redouble makes the loss doing so greater.

Trinidad, on 2012-September-25, 17:22, said:

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

True, but I don't need one. I posted something, and someone said I meant something different. I think averring I actually meant what I said is sufficient: do I really need evidence to back up I mean what I said?

Ok, you want evidence: here it is:

"I solemnly swear, as a cat-lover who has recently played bridge in Ireland, that the post I made contained what I meant."

Ok now?

Trinidad, on 2012-September-25, 17:22, said:

Could you maybe expand a little and enlighten us why you think that someone who initially thought that passing 5♠ was best, would be so sure to bid 6♥/♣ after partner has doubled 5♠ (and a gambling opponent has redoubled) that not only
1) bidding 6♥/♣ is suddenly better than passing, but that
2) passing would be so absurd that it is not even an LA anymore?

I can think of arguments why bidding 6♥/♣ now is better than the round before, but these arguments are not so strong that it takes pass out of the picture as an LA.

Pass the round before was a poor gamble, which I doubt many people would take. The redouble makes the gamble considerably worse, sufficient that pass is no longer an LA.

mrdct, on 2012-September-25, 20:22, said:

The issuing of weighted scores (in jurisdictions that allow it) is a "may" requirement, not a "should", "shall" or "must". There is no obligation on TDs to issue weighted rulings and many (if not most) choose not to as they are a major hassle for scorers.

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.

[lamford]

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

You poll to aid your judgement, and then you judge using results from the poll to aid you.

That was the approach in Iran when they held elections. Those polled must be mistaken. You indicated that you no longer considered it close, some way into this thread, but some very strong players believed that Pass is an LA. You are presumably using their opinions to aid you, but still think that they are mistaken?

[Trinidad]

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

Pass the round before was a poor gamble, which I doubt many people would take. The redouble makes the gamble considerably worse, sufficient that pass is no longer an LA.

Did you happen to read Codo's post (#56)? (I can imagine that your post came at the same time as his.)

He simply shows that your statement should be: The redouble makes the gamble considerably worse marginally raises the stakes of the gamble, sufficient that pass is no longer an LA, so marginally that it shouldn't affect your decision whether to bid or pass.

And since, according to West, pass was the correct action the round before, he should think (absent UI) it is the correct action now. At the very least it will be an LA.

Rik

[lalldonn]

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

You are making the mistake which I am afraid too many people make, and we have discussed only recently. You think that you poll then you add up numbers and rule. That is wrong. You poll to aid your judgement, and then you judge using results from the poll to aid you.

My conclusion is supported by the results of the poll: it became obvious to me how little anyone want to defend agaisnt a 5♠ contract, and the redouble makes the loss doing so greater.

The person at the table didn't seem to mind defending against a 5♠ contract when they passed over 5♠. You are supposed to think about logical alternatives for that person, not for someone who would have never defended 5♠ in the first place. It has become obvious to me that since you and your pollees didn't want to defend against a 5♠ contract, you continue to overlook that the person at the table did want to defend against a 5♠ contract until (among other things) her partner made a slow penalty double.

You will notice if you read my earlier replies in the thread that I would not have passed over 5♠ either. That doesn't change the fact that it's 100% clear that if someone was willing to defend 5♠, it remains a logical alternative to defend it when partner expresses further strong confidence that it is down, regardless of what an untrustworthy opponent does.

Frankly I have no idea why you think I am doing what you said I am doing. It looks like you made it up based on nothing I said, since if I thought "you poll then you add up the numbers and rule" I would have had no reason to question why you don't believe pass is an LA as your poll was unanimous. It has also become clear to me that your prior criticism of my first reply to you was wrong, as I explained why I said what I said and you changed the topic. Don't worry though, I won't lie awake waiting for both apologies.