|
|
|
|
|
|
According to Law 12C3, an Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score to achieve equity. This may lead to more than one score being assigned, as in the following example case.
Suppose North/South are misinformed and double
4
as a result, which makes. The Appeals Committee decide that if they were not misinformed they would not have doubled
4, but would have bid
4
, which makes two overtricks. But would they have bid a slam? If they probably would have, then the Appeals Committee will assume it, and assign a score of slam making.
Now consider: if they would probably not have reached slam, but it was just possible, what is fair? To give them the slam, which they would probably not have reached, so is a gift? Or to assign them a score in game, which means they have never had the chance to reach slam, which they might have done? According to Law 12C3, there is a compromise: the Appeals Committee could assign them a percentage of the slam making, and a percentage of the game with overtricks. For example, they might give them 35% of +980, 65% of +480. Many people will feel this is fair, and players on both sides usually find such rulings acceptable.
The reason you may not have seen this Law in action is that it is a Zonal option. In the ACBL, for example, Law 12C3 does not apply, so Appeals Committees may not give this kind of assigned scores in North America. The WBF acts as a Zone, and so Law 12C3 is in use at these championships, as it is also in Europe (for example). These are called "weighted scores". The IMPs are calculated for each of the scores, and then the percentages ("weightings") applied. In our example, if +500 was the North-South score in the other room, then North-South would calculate the IMPs for 480 against 500 (-1), and for 980 against 500 (+10), and they would get 65% of -1 plus 35% of +10, which is +3, which seems a fair result.
Editor's note:
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Last article |
Laws menu |
Main index |
Top of article |
Local menu |
Next article |