BBO Discussion Forums: Is this a suitable case for a weighted ruling? - BBO Discussion Forums

IMO, Pran is right to adjust to 6♣=. (Whether to weight scores seems to be at the discretion of the director).

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate.

Much better if the rules were changed to include an element of deterrence in the basic rules, themselves, without stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

 nige1, on 2014-July-11, 03:21, said:

However much better it might or might not be, those aren't the rules we have at the moment: my point is that they are what we should be following, not what we might like them to be. The discretion of the Director should be exercised in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Preface ("They [the Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.") and 12B1 (already cited), not in pursuit of some other agenda.

 nige1, on 2014-July-11, 03:21, said:

 PeterAlan, on 2014-July-11, 03:49, said:

And when I adjust to 6♣= it is because I consider that result quite likely when I ignore any line of play that could be suggested by the irregularity and also take into account the possible purpose(s) with that irregularity.

I do not accept any allegation that my ruling here is in conflict with Law 12, on the contrary I consider my ruling fully in accordance with Law 12 after a deliberate violation of Law 73D2.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 10:53, said:

"Inventing" is exactly what they are doing. They are making up a score which hitherto didn't exist for these pairs. That it is also a product of some computation, logical reasoning and guesswork doesn't make it any less an invention.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-10, 10:53, said:

 VixTD, on 2014-July-11, 06:35, said:

Nonsense.

"Weighted average" is a notion that at some time was invented in statistics. It has been adopted in the laws of bridge as "weighted score".

But weighted averages and weighted scores are calculated (or computed) not invented.

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 10:46, said:

No, I'm talking about the same situation.

 pran, on 2014-July-10, 10:46, said:

If you are awarding 100% of 6♣= because you think that without the irregularity NS would have made the contract all the time or nearly all the time then I have no argument with you. But you seem to want to give them 100% of this score just because it is plausible that they would have made the contract had there been no irregularity, and that, I think, is wrong. You have to assign a probability to that outcome and base the assigned score on that probability.

You can ask South how they were going to play, but don't be surprised if they swear they were going to take whichever line would have been successful on the actual layout of the cards.

What do you really think would have happened if East had played low smoothly? Unless South thinks they're playing against beginners who would think about covering the ten, they're on a complete guess here, and would be quite likely to play for the drop, or even run the ten if they were betting on East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving them even as much as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous.

By all means add a procedural or disciplinary penalty of any size you see fit to EW, but don't assign a score that you really don't think would have occurred in practice as a punishment.

 nige1, on 2014-July-11, 03:21, said:

The EBU has recently issued guidelines for directors to try to improve consistency in applying penalties. This won't lead to perfection, and it certainly won't satisfy you, but you might just agree it's a help. The difficulty in this case is a common one: that the TD won't know whether East's fumble was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or just carelessness. If it's the former a disciplinary penalty of 6 imps (or more if you think it's a particularly outrageous offence) would be appropriate:

Quote

If it's the latter, I can't find a specific clause in the guidelines to cover it, but I'd probably award a procedural penalty of 3 imps for failing to take proper care to avoid variations in tempo where this could work to the player's benefit (law 73D1).

 nige1, on 2014-July-11, 03:21, said:

That stigma has been invented by players. It does not exist in the law.

 VixTD, on 2014-July-11, 06:35, said:

I thought I was the only pedant around here.

You are, of course, literally correct by at least one meaning of the word, but it can carry a connotation of "it ain't true" or "it ain't correct" and "I just made it up." It's that to which I was objecting.

 pran, on 2014-July-11, 05:01, said:

Consider these two cases:
(1) E hestitates accidentally, and declarer goes wrong
(2) E hestitates intentionally and for the purpose of deception, and declarer goes wrong

Would you give NS the same score in both cases, or would you give NS more in case 2?

If you give NS more in case 2, your ruling is in breach of 12B1

 gnasher, on 2014-July-11, 13:37, said:

Might the director rule the same way as Pran, in both cases, without trying to read the mind of the hesitater, citing the popular and generally applicable L23.

TFLB L23 said:

"Popular and generally applicable?" Where do you get this stuff, Nigel?

1) No one but a rank beginner would hesitate here with Q8x or Q87x
2) Therefore, hesitating with a small singleton would work to East's benefit only if declarer runs the 10 as a double shot, and the TD/AC decline to adjust.
3) Therefore East could not reasonably suppose that hesitating with a singleton would, in expectation, improve his score
4) Therefore we should not rule against him under 73F
5) Therefore I would let the table result stand

Anyone agree with me?

 nige1, on 2014-July-11, 17:57, said:

It's irrelevant whether you're adjusting under Law 23 or or Law 73F. In neither case do you have to read anybody's mind, and in both cases Law 12 tells you what adjustment to make. You determine what equity is, and then you adjust the score to reflect that. If you think declarer would have made 100% of the time, your suggested ruling is correct; otherwise it's not.

The hesitator's intention is relevant only for two purposes:
- Applying a procedural or disciplinary penalty for an intentional breach of the rules, independent of the adjustment to restore equity.
- Making an illegal Pran-style ruling, where the adjusted score is a function of the offender's intent.

 Aardv, on 2014-July-12, 11:13, said:

No. I don't know which requirement of Law 73F you think does not apply.

He has violated Law 73D by not being "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side".
It has resulted in damage to his innocent opponent.
He has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action (hesitation & shrug).
His innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from it.
He could have known that the action could work to his benefit.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-11, 20:27, said:

From the IBLF forum, where L23 is cited in many ruling discussions e.g. here

 gordontd, on 2014-July-12, 12:34, said:

 gordontd, on 2014-July-12, 12:34, said:

I agree with aardv. There is no reason for anyone to play the queen from Qx or Qxx here. It's quite different from a situation where declarer leads the J from AJ109 towards Kxxxx in dummy.

So there is no damage resulting from East's action. Declarer made the wrong choice in the club suit but East's actions didn't make that choice any more likely to succeed.

While there is little reason to hesitate with Qxx, it should be obvious that there is even less reason to hesitate with x. East's pause makes it certain declarer will go wrong because the one holding it eliminates is the one he actually has.

 campboy, on 2014-July-13, 01:31, said:

and East could know that people will hesitate with the queen because in some situations it is right to cover an honour with an honour even if this is not such a situation, and some players will take time to recognise what the position is.

 nige1, on 2014-July-12, 15:29, said:

I was citing Law 73F.