Adjusted Score with UI

North opens 1NT(12-14). East overcalls 2H (not alerted). South bids 3D (constructive).
With reasonable H stoppers and reasonable D, North tries 3NT.
East leads a S, and it's carnage.
At the end of the hand East says 'partner should have alerted 2H, it was a transfer.'
TD is called, and awards an artificially adjusted score.
It's clear that North will not bid 3NT with the correct information, and 3D will go down two, -200.
But most of the field are playing in S by East making 9 or 10 tricks.
So the score looks like it should be some weighted average of -200, -170 & -140: say -180.

So far OK, but...

In the discussion with TD East volunteered that he 'might well' have bid 3S.
However it might be argued that he would only do that because he is in possession of UI; (his partner thinks he has H)
So actually, should East playing in S be considered in the weighting, even though it is to NS advantage?

Comments

  • Does West know that it's a transfer? If not then there is no agreement that 2H means spades. If so, then East simply misbid and, since West didn't act on UI, there should be no adjustment and the contract should stand. What does their system card say?

  • While a system card will provide evidence of their actual agreement, if the partnership has no system card, as is often the case at clubs, then we have to judge what the actual agreement is by asking the players, and it may be either natural, or a transfer showing spades, or no agreement but it might be natural or a transfer.

    Let's assume, as the OP suggests, that the agreement is that the 2!h is a transfer showing spades and that therefore there was mis-information. In addition to considering whether North would bid 3NT or not, we should also consider whether South would bid 3!d or not if South has the information that East has spades.

    Mike is right that East has the UI that West hasn't alerted, and in the normal way we wouldn't consider allowing East to bid 3!s if not bidding 3!s is a logical alternative action. But if East says he might well bid 3!s and if a 3!s bid by East might help NS in a weighting, then I would suggest that we don't have to consider Law 16 because using the UI would benefit the non-offending side.

    Without the hands, I can't guess at a weighting, but an adjustment to an artificial adjusted score (eg Averages) would be either because the TD didn't know any better or because he applied Law 12C1d, but the latter should be considered a last resort and we should well be able to apply some sensible weightings for an assigned (non-artificial) adjusted score under Law 12C1c

    Barrie Partridge - Senior Kibitzer in Bridge Club Live - Pig Trader in IBLF

  • @MikeK said:
    North opens 1NT(12-14). East overcalls 2H (not alerted). South bids 3D (constructive).
    With reasonable H stoppers and reasonable D, North tries 3NT.
    East leads a S, and it's carnage.
    At the end of the hand East says 'partner should have alerted 2H, it was a transfer.'
    TD is called, and awards an artificially adjusted score.
    It's clear that North will not bid 3NT with the correct information, and 3D will go down two, -200.
    But most of the field are playing in S by East making 9 or 10 tricks.
    So the score looks like it should be some weighted average of -200, -170 & -140: say -180.

    So far OK, but...

    In the discussion with TD East volunteered that he 'might well' have bid 3S.
    However it might be argued that he would only do that because he is in possession of UI; (his partner thinks he has H)
    So actually, should East playing in S be considered in the weighting, even though it is to NS advantage?

    Note: you do NOT give weighted scores (it is NOT an average) like that.

    You assume that part of the time the final result will be EITHER -200, -170 OR -140.
    You then work out how many matchpoints you get for each score and multiply it by the probability that the score would be reached.

    e.g.

    -200 would happen 25% of the time and gets 0 matchpoints
    -170 would happen 20% of the time and gets 5 matchpoints
    -140 would happen 55% of the time and gets 10 matchpoints (you weigh the more favourable results pro NOS)

    Then you award 0 X 25% + 5 X 20% +10 X 55% = 6.5 matchpoints to the NOS and whatever the balance is of the total matchpoints available to the OS. (For the sake of completeness, if the NOS committed an extremely serious error not related to the infraction e.g. revoked then this method is changed slightly)

  • To clarify.
    a) West had forgotten the system, they had a card(s)
    b) It wasn't an 'artificial' score, my mistake: should have said 'assigned'.
    c) Yes the calculation of mps was non-rigorous, but that wasn't the issue.
    Is there is an easy way to do weightings correctly in ScoreBridge?

  • Over a year since I used Scorebridge. i think all you can do is to enter the possible contracts in turn and get the matchpoints (by using "End/ Save Board") once all the other results are entered, then work out the final percentage as above that each player gets and enter that in the NS Score, EW Score columns (with the % sign)

  • I have a spreadsheet that was designed to do weighted scores in Scorebridge, using the "fine" column to make the adjustments for all the pairs. It's still a bit fiddly but should work as long as Scorebridge hasn't been changed in any relevant respect since I wrote it ten years ago! I'll send you a copy Mike and you can report back here (as long as your email program doesn't block it!).

  • Thanks, Gordon. It looked intimidating, but actually I didn't find it too difficult to use the spreadsheet.
    The resulting score is marginally different in %, but the rankings are unchanged.
    However I don't think it can be considered an 'easy' way to do weightings.
    In an era where most of our members expect to see an 'instant' result, is there any reason why we shouldn't continue to weight the score (rather than mps)?
    I can see that it isn't rigorous, but neither is not using Neuberg.

    I will put a copy on our Club computer. I can't remember when we last had a weighted score, but if/when it comes up again we will be prepared.
    Although EBUScore might have avoided this issue, most of our TDs were weaned on ScoreBridge and still use that.

  • I use pottage to overcall 1NT and have never seen a transfer by the opponents. Is this a special system?

  • Transfer overcalls of 1NT are not very common but I have come across them, mostly in the case of one chap at my club who heard about them, thought they were a wonderful idea and got his partners to play them, but inevitably they kept forgetting and I can remember doing quite a few rulings when they did, until he gave up using them! :)

    Barrie Partridge - Senior Kibitzer in Bridge Club Live - Pig Trader in IBLF

  • @MikeK said:is there any reason why we shouldn't continue to weight the score (rather than mps)?

    Yes, this really is wrong. Imagine (exaggerated for effect) that you want to give 55% of +400 and 45% of +430 in a field of 11 where 9 of the others scored +400 and 1 scored +430.

    Your way, you would give them 18/20 matchpoints whereas the approved way would give them 13.5/20. Clearly they should be getting something a bit better than average, not something close to a top.

  • That's not really "exaggerated for effect". If you want to show a real "exaggerated for effect" example, how about a MI ruling on defensive carding in which you want to give 50% of 6D making (+1370) and 50% of 6D-1 (-100).

    Everyone else in the field made either 5D exactly (+600) or 5D+1 (+620)

    You can see you want to give them exactly average - half the time a top for making slam, half the time a bottom for going off.

    But the 'average result' is +635 which is exactly the same matchpoints as making slam i.e. an outright top.

  • You are correct and your example is better. I changed mine partway through and forgot to delete that parenthetical comment.

  • OK, I get the point about weighting the mps not the score.
    But as I mentioned, in this instance it makes marginal difference.

    I don't know whether Sheba977 lives North of Watford, but I fear there is a 'Suction' wave spreading North!
    In competent hands it can be a potent weapon.
    But I agree with Barrie; we have too many people trying to play it with partners who forget or don't bid appropriately.
    But we are well away from the original topic now.

    Incidentally, having said how infrequently we have weighted scores, we had another one!

Sign In or Register to comment.