[gnasher]

Law 82C tells us that after a director's error both sides should be treated as non-offending. Does that imply that he should produce a single weighted score under 12C1c?

For example, a director's error led to a nonsensical auction. In a normal auction, NS might or might not have bid a making game. Do we give a weighted score?

Was it different under the 2007 Laws?

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, if both sides are treated as non-offending, I would expect a split score, not a weighted score.

[VixTD]

It should normally be a split and a weighted score, if there's doubt about the outcome.

Let's say that without the erroneous ruling NS might have bid to 4♠, or might have stopped in a part-score, in each case making ten tricks. Let's say your best estimate is that they would have bid game half the time.

If EW had been offending, you would award 60% of 4♠= and 40% of 3♠+1 to both sides (giving NS some benefit of the doubt as they are non-offending, so a slightly favourable weighting).

If NS had been offending, you would award 40% of 4♠= and 60% of 3♠+1 to both sides (this time giving EW the benefit in the weighting).

As both sides are non-offending, you give each of them 60% of the score that is more favourable to them, and 40% of the other.

If you thought NS are more likely than that to bid game, your weightings might be 80% and 40% of the more favourable score, 20% and 60% of the less favourable. The principle is the same.

This law did not change in the latest revision.

[RMB1]

What VixTD said.
There EBU approach to Law 82C and split+weighted scores is in the White Book 8.82 (and some other sections cross-referenced from there).

[gnasher]

I know that Law 82C didn't change, but Law 12 did. The 2007 Law 12C1f explicitly permitted non-balancing scores, whereas (so far as I can see) the 2017 Laws don't.

So, which 2017 law permits a split score in this situation? Or do we not need explicit permission?

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2017-September-25, 14:07, said:

So, which 2017 law permits a split score in this situation? Or do we not need explicit permission?

Good question.

Under previous laws, we were happy to skew a weighted score in favour of the non-offending side. So Law 82C would lead to non-balancing adjusted scores.

But the 2017 wording of Law 12B and Law 12C1 (except Law 12C1 (e)) suggest that the adjusted score can accurately reflect the outcome of the board without the irregularity: seeking to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board; which side if non-offending is irrelevant.

There is no scope in the those laws to treat one side, or the other other, or both as non-offending, so the old (unchanged) wording of Law 82C appears at odds with the new wording of Law 12.

[gnasher]

The part about treating both sides as non-offending is still relevant if you're assigning artificial adjusted scores, which are clearly allowed not to balance. That is, one possible interpretation is that you can award 60% to each pair, but you can't give each pair a favourable "bridge" result.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2017-September-26, 00:17, said:

The part about treating both sides as non-offending is still relevant if you're assigning artificial adjusted scores, which are clearly allowed not to balance. That is, one possible interpretation is that you can award 60% to each pair, but you can't give each pair a favourable "bridge" result.

I've brought this up with a member of the WBFLC who is going to bring it up for their discussions leading to the new commentary. I do however wonder if it could be done under 12C1c, since it doesn't explicitly say the weightings have to balance. Not very satisfactory I agree.

[lamford]

Under the new laws, where there is director error, it seems the aim is to get the result that would have occurred without the director error. In most sport, where a wrong referee or umpire decision is reviewed and overturned, the same result for both sides is imposed. There seems no reason why one side or the other should get a windfall from the director error when it must be possible to decide what would have occurred without it. And that could be 50% of 4S= and 50% of 2S+2 for both sides in gnasher's example.

[axman]

gnasher, on 2017-September-25, 06:32, said:

Law 82C tells us that after a director's error both sides should be treated as non-offending. Does that imply that he should produce a single weighted score under 12C1c?

For example, a director's error led to a nonsensical auction. In a normal auction, NS might or might not have bid a making game. Do we give a weighted score?

Was it different under the 2007 Laws?

I believe that the standard to be applied when DE exists, is first... that there is no rectification that is scored normally. In other words, DE does not automatically go to treating both sides as non offending without first contemplation of applying the law.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-September-26, 04:26, said:

Under the new laws, where there is director error, it seems the aim is to get the result that would have occurred without the director error. In most sport, where a wrong referee or umpire decision is reviewed and overturned, the same result for both sides is imposed. There seems no reason why one side or the other should get a windfall from the director error when it must be possible to decide what would have occurred without it. And that could be 50% of 4S= and 50% of 2S+2 for both sides in gnasher's example.

The justification for applying a "sympathetic weighting" to the non-offending side comes from 12B1; we take care that what we give them is proper redress for the damage they have suffered, and that what we give the non-offenders really does remove the advantage they gained from the infraction. That had become such widespread practice by 2017 that I would have expected the Laws Committee to write it into the new laws, or at least make specific provision to allow for it. Instead, they introduced a new clause in 12C1(b) and removed the old 12C1(f), which made me wonder whether the intention was to put paid to the practice of sympathetic weighting. I was assured this was not the case, and that we were expected to continue with it.

It's not the only situation where directors have found themselves suddenly wrong-footed by the unexpected absence of 12C1(f).

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-September-26, 04:26, said:

Under the new laws, where there is director error, it seems the aim is to get the result that would have occurred without the director error. In most sport, where a wrong referee or umpire decision is reviewed and overturned, the same result for both sides is imposed. There seems no reason why one side or the other should get a windfall from the director error when it must be possible to decide what would have occurred without it. And that could be 50% of 4S= and 50% of 2S+2 for both sides in gnasher's example.

Do these sports you mention have the "treating both sides as non-offending" language in their rules for this situation?