Non-balancing Assigned Scores

by David Stevenson

I sometimes wonder if we are getting confused as to when split scores may be given. Perhaps I might summarise. Note NOs = non-offenders, Os = offenders.

1. If a TD or AC gives a ruling under L12C2 there is a different basis for the score assigned to the NOs and to the Os. Normally this is because a result is deemed to be "at all probable" but not "likely".
   
   

   Example.

   N/S bid up to 4 but they misinform E/W who can make 6. However, 6 is very unlikely to be bid, but it is just possible, if they are correctly informed. However, with correct information it is routine for E/W to reach 4.
   
   

   Adjustment:

   N/S are the Os: they receive NS-1430, 6= vE
   E/W are the NOs: they receive NS-680, 4+2 vE
   
   

2. On some occasions the NOs take some action that is considered bad enough to break the causal link, and they do not get the benefit of an adjustment in consequence. Unfortunately, SOs do not agree on what to do next, and it is even inconsistent what to do next within an individual SO [see the ACBL case-books]. However, I believe the correct approach is for the Os to have their score adjusted accordingly, and the NOs to lose some of their redress. It is normal to give the NOs no redress in such cases: the wording of the CoP and certain other arguments suggest that there is a case for subtracting the amount of damage that was the consequence of their action. This is usually a very difficult line to follow.

   Considering the simple case, where the NOs do not get an adjustment, the question is what level of action snaps the causal link.

   The WBF standard is "irrational, wild or gambling action".
   The ACBL standard is "an egregious error".
   The EBU standard is "wild or gambling action".

   The ACBL approach is to make people "play Bridge" or lose their redress: the EBU approach is to only disallow redress when there is at least some suggestion of the double shot: the WBF approach appears to be a compromise between these two.
   
   

   Example.

   North bids 4 clearly based on UI from his partner rather than leaving it in 3S. 4 is cold. However, East makes a lunatic double, a dreadful opening lead, and lets through 4*+1.
   
   

   Adjustment:

   N/S are the Os: they receive NS+170, 3S+1 vN
   E/W are the NOs: they receive NS+990, 4*+1 vE
   
   

3. All this is separate from a "weighted" score under L12C3 where after an infraction a TD or AC gives a percentage of various scores. It is not impossible to combine weighted and split scores under [2] above though not under [1]: if the NOs are not permitted to get redress that is no bar to the Os' redress being in the form of a weighted score.
   
   

   Example.

   North bids 4 clearly based on UI from his partner rather than leaving it in 3S. 4 is cold. However, East makes a lunatic double, an unfortunate opening lead, and lets through 4*+1.
   
   

   Adjustment:

   N/S are the Os: they receive
      50% NS+200, 3S+2 vN
   + 50% NS+170, 3S+1 vN
   E/W are the NOs: they receive NS+990, 4*+1 vE
   
   

4. In ordinary L12C3 situations Colker always and Burn sometimes [dependent on situation] want to adjust for the NOs using L12C3 to provide a weighted score, but to give the Os an adjustment under L12C2 so they get the worst of all scores that are "at all probable". Colker has argued that if L12C3 is to be introduced to the ACBL this ought to be the way it is done. Burn has argued that the EBU have mandated this as a method for L73F2 rulings.
   
   

   Example.

   N/S bid up to 4 but they misinform E/W who might make 6. However, 6 is very unlikely to be bid, but it is just possible, if they are correctly informed. However, with correct information it is routine for E/W to reach 4.
   
   

   Adjustment:

   N/S are the Os: they receive NS-1430, 6= vE
   E/W are the NOs: they receive
      50% NS-650, 4+1 vE
   + 50% NS-680, 4+2 vE
   
   

5. It is not unheard of for a TD to give the NOs redress while letting the Os keep the good score obtained at the table. There seems no basis in Law for this. Presumably it is meant as a Customer Relations exercise.

Editor's note:

• If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to David Stevenson?
• I shall be pleased to hear from you!

Last article	Laws menu	List of Contents	Main index	Top of article	Local menu	Next article