[Phil]

Scoring: MP

1♠ - pass - 2♠ - 4♥;
pass* - pass - 4♠ - AP

*agreed hesitation

---

I was called over after the 4♠ call.

Declarer didn't take the club finesse, made a mess out of the play and went -2.

It was a club game, so I couldn't poll any players about what they would do over 4♥ with the North hand, however, with 3 trump, and an Ace, I ruled that 4♠ wasn't a LA after the slow pass.

4♥ can't be made with normal defense, however at some tables, North chose a spade lead so there were five 620's EW (played 13 times). I don't recall what the actual matchpoints were.

I let the table result stand, since +100 EW was obviously better than -100 in 4♥.

This is the type of hand where you might award a split score in other jurisdictions, right? Any other thoughts?

[MFA]

A weighted score, yes. That would be a good way to solve this one.

Here we could weight X% 4♥10, (100-X)% 4♥9, reflecting that 4♠ is an illegal bid.

Before we assign the weighted score to the two pairs, we must remember to check if it really is a better matchpoint score for E-W that we are giving them, in comparison to the one they already have (4♠-2). If not, there is no reason to adjust, so the table result would then stand.

[blackshoe]

I don't know why it's being a club game should stop you from polling players. I did that (polled some players) just last night — and we had only four tables!

There are four criteria for a score adjustment based on UI:

1. There was UI. Check.
2. The UI demonstrably suggests the call made. I don't know about that. Set it aside for the moment.
3. There was another, probably less successful alternative. That would ordinarily be pass here.
4. There was damage. Here, it didn't happen.

These criteria are not applied in any particular order. The lack of any one of them is sufficient to allow the score to stand. Here, there was no damage, so the score stands. You need not concern yourself with the other criteria.

Split score: NS and EW get different scores.
Weighted score: in adjusting, you assign weights to each of several possibilities, and compute the weighted average of those scores. Both sides get the same score.

Split scores are rare. They primarily happen when the NOS take an action judged to be SEWoG (a serious error, or wild, or gambling), and so forfeit some (or all) of the redress to which they're entitled. The OS gets the full adjustment, as if there had been no SEWoG action.

Weighted scores are illegal in the ACBL, and the norm in the rest of the world.

What happened at other tables is irrelevant, and should not be considered.

Edit: I see I've cross-posted with MFA. His example and point about checking to be sure the weighted score is better for the NOS are both good.

[Phil]

Sorry, I meant 'weighted' score, not 'split'.

Blackshoe, how do you go about polling players at a club game when the board is in play? It seems to me that either:

- Another pair hasn't played the board (so thats out).

- Another pair has played the board, and would be influenced by knowing the actual hand, or would have an incentive to vote a certain way since they would benefit one way or another.

Now granted, most of the people in the room cannot recall a hand they played an hour ago unless they had the hand record. But still....

[peachy]

Responder's hand grew more offensive with the right singleton. I think 4S in the given auction is clear, not vulnerable against vulnerable opponent who volunteered a 4H, unfavorable. Had the singleton been in another suit, then there might be some question about bidding 4S. As it is, I don't think Pass is a contender for a LA though some might Pass. Poll it, if necessary.

Responder looking at his own hand sees a singleton; I don't think I would expect a singleton in partner's hand as well, and therefore the BIT seems to suggest a Dbl. Had responder doubled, I would rule it back. But this, table result stands.

[TimG]

Phil, on Aug 14 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

It was a club game, so I couldn't poll any players about what they would do over 4♥ with the North hand, however, with 3 trump, and an Ace, I ruled that 4♠ wasn't a LA after the slow pass.

Either 4♠ is a logical alternative or it isn't, doesn't matter whether or not there was a slow pass (BIT) for that determination. Further, it doesn't really matter whether 4♠ was a LA, in this case it matters whether pass was a LA.

Separate from the LA consideration is whether there was UI and whether that UI demonstrably suggested one call over another.

In my opinion, there was UI as a result of the BIT, the UI demonstrably suggested bidding 4♠ over passing, and pass was a LA.

Quote

4♥ can't be made with normal defense, however at some tables, North chose a spade lead so there were five 620's EW (played 13 times).

I think the results show that 4♥ can make on normal defense. (Unless north really was leading out of turn at five tables, perhaps 5 out of 13 even makes that "normal".)

[blackshoe]

Phil, on Aug 14 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

Blackshoe, how do you go about polling players at a club game when the board is in play? It seems to me that either:

- Another pair hasn't played the board (so thats out).

- Another pair has played the board, and would be influenced by knowing the actual hand, or would have an incentive to vote a certain way since they would benefit one way or another.

Now granted, most of the people in the room cannot recall a hand they played an hour ago unless they had the hand record. But still....

I polled two good players who I trust to answer my questions honestly and who (of course) had already played the board. Granted, two isn't very many, but I only had twelve to choose from, and eight of those were not peers of the players involved in the ruling.

One of the two I polled, btw, was the Unit Recorder for several years.

[MFA]

blackshoe, on Aug 14 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 14 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

Blackshoe, how do you go about polling players at a club game when the board is in play? It seems to me that either:

- Another pair hasn't played the board (so thats out).

- Another pair has played the board, and would be influenced by knowing the actual hand, or would have an incentive to vote a certain way since they would benefit one way or another.

Now granted, most of the people in the room cannot recall a hand they played an hour ago unless they had the hand record. But still....

I polled two good players who I trust to answer my questions honestly and who (of course) had already played the board.

I suppose it's not a matter of honesty but of being influenced by knowing what the winning action is.

[Mbodell]

I think pass is a LA and I think E/W were damaged.

I think at a minimum N/S should get -620. While double dummy 4♥ is hopeless, that is way over influenced by seeing all four hands. Leading a spade when it is your long suit and partner supported you from KTxxx is certainly "at all probable". I think E/W should also get +620 since I'd think it is also "likely" (and the table results do sort of show that, assuming that the table results can be used as a sort of poll for what is a likely lead from South's peers).

Why are we rewarding South with the presence of mind to avoid leading spades through out the hand?

[blackshoe]

MFA, on Aug 14 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 14 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 14 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

Blackshoe, how do you go about polling players at a club game when the board is in play? It seems to me that either:

- Another pair hasn't played the board (so thats out).

- Another pair has played the board, and would be influenced by knowing the actual hand, or would have an incentive to vote a certain way since they would benefit one way or another.

Now granted, most of the people in the room cannot recall a hand they played an hour ago unless they had the hand record. But still....

I polled two good players who I trust to answer my questions honestly and who (of course) had already played the board.

I suppose it's not a matter of honesty but of being influenced by knowing what the winning action is.

The auction that generated the problem did not occur, I'm sure, at any other table. But this thread isn't about that hand; let's not hijack it.

[McBruce]

When you poll players you are only showing them one hand and the auction up to the "what now?" point. So even in a club game where everyone is playing all the boards you can find people who have already played the set and choose people who didn't actually hold that hand. This is usually enough to get reasonable answers. Ask to see their scorecards; don't ask "have you played Board 21 yet?" And give them the problem with the instructions that "if you recognize this, ignore what happened at your table and consider it as a new problem." You're not so much looking for what they would do as you are seeking the various bids that they would seriously consider.

I recall approaching a player once for a poll and saying "you hold this hand and your opponents bid uncontested to 6♠. Which opening leads do you consider?"

He looked at the hand for 25 seconds and then said, "Six Spades by who?"

[OleBerg]

Mbodell, on Aug 14 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

I think pass is a LA and I think E/W were damaged.

I think at a minimum N/S should get -620. While double dummy 4♥ is hopeless, that is way over influenced by seeing all four hands. Leading a spade when it is your long suit and partner supported you from KTxxx is certainly "at all probable". I think E/W should also get +620 since I'd think it is also "likely" (and the table results do sort of show that, assuming that the table results can be used as a sort of poll for what is a likely lead from South's peers).

Why are we rewarding South with the presence of mind to avoid leading spades through out the hand?

I would indeed rule like this without second thought. 10% 4♥-1 is fine too, but not my call.

[aguahombre]

Mbodell, on Aug 14 2010, 03:17 PM, said:

I think pass is a LA and I think E/W were damaged.

I think at a minimum N/S should get -620.  While double dummy 4♥ is hopeless, that is way over influenced by seeing all four hands.  Leading a spade when it is your long suit and partner supported you from KTxxx is certainly "at all probable".  I think E/W should also get +620 since I'd think it is also "likely" (and the table results do sort of show that, assuming that the table results can be used as a sort of poll for what is a likely lead from South's peers).

Why are we rewarding South with the presence of mind to avoid leading spades through out the hand?

Yep. North chose a limited action two levels lower on the previous round. This kind of bidding (4S now) usually is unsuccessful; always annoys me even without a UI hitch; and should be ruled against whenever there is an excuse to do so.

True there are hands where one's values grow significantly in a competitive situation, and reevaluation is quite proper. This is not such a case, IMHO. Another case in point why I should not be a director: I would rule against N/S without polling. If the offending side wants to appeal, let them or the AC find people who are tollerant of 4S.

[suprgrover]

blackshoe, on Aug 14 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

Split score: NS and EW get different scores.

[...]

Split scores are rare. They primarily happen when the NOS take an action judged to be SEWoG (a serious error, or wild, or gambling), and so forfeit some (or all) of the redress to which they're entitled. The OS gets the full adjustment, as if there had been no SEWoG action.

Weighted scores are illegal in the ACBL, and the norm in the rest of the world.

Because the ACBL is a 12C1e jurisdiction, though, should we not expect split scores sometimes even without SEWoG actions? In lieu of a weighted score, we are told that:

Quote

(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at
all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

Here's my question. If it is "at all probable" that South leads a spade against 4♥ but it is not "likely", then we could award -620 to NS. But what can we award to EW? Do we have to give them -100 because it is the most favorable likely result without the irregularity? Or can we award them the +100 earned at the table?

[peachy]

IMNSHO; In the beginning the hand was a 2S raise with a singleton that was no better or worse than a singleton in any other suit. In the end, the value of the singleton in the opponents' suit raised the hand's offensive potential (not *values*) so that a sacrifice against opposing game became a sound decision. 4S was not bid to make.

Polling is a valuable tool if a case is not clear. Even with the strong opinion that I have about this case, I would still poll. It only takes a couple of phone calls if no available pollees are present, and those don't even have to be made at the very instant, TD can deliver a final ruling later.

[blackshoe]

suprgrover, on Aug 15 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

Here's my question.  If it is "at all probable" that South leads a spade against 4♥ but it is not "likely", then we could award -620 to NS.  But what can we award to EW?  Do we have to give them -100 because it is the most favorable likely result without the irregularity?  Or can we award them the +100 earned at the table?

I suppose I don't think of adjustments given under 12C1{e} as "split scores", but they can be, so I guess I should.

If the TD judges that 4♥ is not likely to make, then EW should get -100. The table result is not possible absent the irregularity. But then the question is, were EW damaged? If the answer is no (because they got a better result than their expectation) then the table score should stand.

[gnasher]

Are you allowed to give NS -620 and EW +100 ? That is, NS get the most favourable result that was "at all probable" without the infraction, and EW get the table result, because that's better than the most favourable "likely" result.

I'm not saying that I'd want to do that, just asking if it's legal. It appears that it might be covered by the phrase "all or part of the following procedure" in 12C1(e)

[blackshoe]

That phrase applies to the choice the RA makes to implement "all or part" of this law. The ACBL has elected to implement all of it, so I don't think it's legal to let them keep their table score. The law (in the ACBL version, which is, iirc, not the same as the WBF version) says that "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to both sides. If the irregularity hadn't occurred, it would have been impossible for the NOS to get +100, because the OS would have passed out 4♥.