|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
James Vickers Reply |
Original reposted below on behalf of James Vickers.
|
|
bridgeaddict Unavailable 510 posts   Reply |
County pairs competition.
* = alerted and explained as "cue bid". West led 8  and East, taking the explanation at face value and assuming South to be void, ducked. South now made 4 +1 (details of play not available). At the end of play EW complained that they had been misled by the explanation, and had they been given a correct explanation or a timely correction by South before the opening lead, they would have taken their club ruff and perhaps defeated the contract. When asked about their agreements, North said "Well, I took it as a cue bid", South seemed to think this was a reasonable interpretation, and that they hadn't really discussed this sort of sequence. How should the Director rule? James |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
It would appear there was misinformation. South believes that the sequence is undiscussed, and thus the explanation of "cue-bid" is wrong. South was required to correct this before the opening lead, and failed to do so.
It also appears that North did not believe they had an agreement that it was a "cue-bid" either since he said "I took it as ..." so both South and North were remiss. They should both have the Laws explained to them. As for an adjustment, if East takes the A, gives his partner a ruff, and his partner returns ... what? East will not be sure what to ask for with both red kings. Even if West returns a diamond there is unlikely to be a second ruff since declarer will probably play the ace and go one off. It makes on a heart return.How about .. 40% of 4 making+ 60% of 4 -1That's what North-South get. For East-West it is more interesting. The play at trick one is so dreadfully poor - assuming partner has led the 8 from Q J 8 6 4 3 is amazing - that I am tempted to deny East-West any redress. East certainly was not playing bridge when he ducked.Still, in England the standard for denying redress is "wild or gambling action, with at least the hint of a double shot". East's play at trick one is certainly wild, but is there any suspicion of the double shot? Not really! I would give East-West the same adjustment, but it is a very close run thing - I do not believe they deserve it! 
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
What actually happened was as follows: My fellow director made the ruling and discussed the case with me. I initially misunderstood the problem and assumed that West had failed to lead a club because of the misinformation, and made ready to adjust to something like what you suggested - some percentage of 4S= and some percentage of 4S-1 to both sides. When I realised that the problem was East's duck of the club lead, I lost sympathy with EW, since even if the explanation is correct it seems most likely that South has cue-bid a singleton (honour) in which case ducking looks very dangerous. We let the score stand, the Appeals Committee adjusted to 4S= to both sides. I agree that there was misinformation, and that NS need to be more careful of what they pass off as agreements to the opposition, but changing the score from 4S+1 to 4S= / 4S-1 largely on the basis of EW's poor play seems a rather harsh lesson for NS. Thanks for your reply. James PS I tried to use your template for the hand layout and auction, and you can obviously read it, but to me it just looks like a lot of indecipherable code. Any idea as to whether this is my mistake, some formatting problem my end, or what? |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
North-South gained an advantage through breaking the Law. Why on earth should they not have that advantage taken away from them? You allowed a pair to gain by breaking the law!!!! That cannot be right.
Your Appeals Committee has also allowed the pair to gain by breaking the law, though not to gain so much. Do you think North-South will take the trouble to explain fully next time?  If someone does something wrong, do not let them gain from it.  Of course, I agree with the lack of sympathy for East-West. If you like, split the score, and give them a poor score as well. As I explained I think this is probably a little too harsh for England [though would be correct in other jurisdictions which have a more exacting standard]. But it is close. As for your comment about formatting, I read your diagram easily but it went strange when I looked at my reply. However, when just looking at the thread, it seems fine. But it is not mine! The Bridgetalk people look after this forum for me, and I shall ask them to look at your comment and reply to it.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
Perhaps I am out of line with normal practice here and need to review my approach to such rulings, but the reason I let the score stand was that the peculiar action taken by East was the cause of the damage, not the misexplanation. When I apply the usual algorithm in such cases: was there MI? (yes) was the non-offending side damaged as a consequence? (no) I take the matter no further. Saying that NS should not gain from breaking the law is pretty close to saying that we should adjust the score _because_ NS broke the law. Score adjustments should make recompense for damage and not be used as punishments. I would make it clear to NS that they escaped by the skin of their teeth only because EW screwed up, and that they should be more careful in future. Perhaps that will serve as sufficient warning. But then again, perhaps this approach is too hard on EW, who were misled after all. The more I think of this, the more I like the idea of a split score. James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Consider the offenders only.
Was there MI? Yes. Might they have received a poorer score wihtout the MI? Yes. Then you are required to adjust for the offenders.
|
|
bridgeaddict Unavailable 510 posts Reply |
Template Explanation:
Currently the template can be used only by the admin (me) and the moderators (bluejak, Ed and JimO). The reason is that the template uses HTML code (which is how web pages are written) and its use is restricted. Initially, I edited James' post, inserting the necessary code to enable the correct display of the hand. Because I was able to see it, I assumed it would be visible to everyone. It was only when James mentioned that it still looked a mess of code, that I realised something was amiss. What he (and everyone else except the moderators) was seeing was the "raw" HTML code. I've edited out James' initial post and reposted the hand exactly as he set it out originally, so now everyone can enjoy it! The HTML restriction will be lifted at some time in the reasonably near future, enabling the use of the template by registered members. In the meantime, I would recommend using the "pre" tag, as described in Posting Hints. |
|
Guest Reply |
from a technical point of view, east should request a diamond return because there are fewer diamonds held between the north-east hands than hearts. consequently, there is a greater likelihood that south has at least 2 diamonds. also, i don't understand how the game ever makes on a diamond return. let's say ace of clubs, club ruff, diamond to dummy's ace. how is south to dispose of his two losing diamonds before giving up the lead? even if he plays ah, qh (covered) and establishes the jack of hearts for a discard, he cannot get to dummy fast enough. consequently, it would appear that with normal defense 4s should always go down 1. whether this east is capable of normal defense after the duck of the ace of clubs is a legitimate questions, and on that basis some sort of split ruling such as david suggests could well be appropriate. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
My weighting was based on 4
-1 on a diamond return, 4= on a heart return, and I gave the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt so they got the 60%.Incidentally, the term "split ruling" refers to where the different sides get different scores [which was discussed], and the term "weighted score" to where both sides get the same score, but it is a percentage of various things. In fact, if you disallow redress for East-West as suggested in the thread, this ruling is both split and weighted!!!!!
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
If I remember correctly the scores on the traveller were a roughly even mix of 4S= and 4S-1, with only one other 4S+1. I believe I was told at my last TD training session that the assignment of weighted split scores, while legal, is not to be encouraged. Yet if one agrees that EW deserve to keep their score, this is the only reasonable solution, otherwise the TD would have to decide between giving NS the full benefit of 4S=, or hit them with the full weight of 4S-1. James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
It depends what you mean by "weighted split scores". If you mean "split scores" where the two sides get different scores, we do discourage it. It is very rare, and if you look back on the thread I would not have used a split score in this case.
If you mean "weighted scores" where people get a percentage of various scores, then you have been misinformed. We encourage it, and in a case like this it shows: if we do not use Law 12C3 then the score of 4 -1 is automatic - there is no case whatever for an adjustment of 4 making only.As for the score-sheet, we do not look at it when deciding rulings.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
I mean a score which is both weighted and split, i.e. a mixture of 4S= and 4S-1 to one side (weighted) and 4S+1 to the other (split). You may not have chosen this option, but you mentioned it as a possibility.
Quite so. James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
It is true that a "weighted split score" is very rare, and probably discouraged - but that is nothing really to do with the weighted part of it. We discourage all split scores. The benchmark for split scores is quite strong in England and Wales, and as a result all split scores are very rare.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:39:13 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status