Director Decision

[trafalski.mike]

in a recent event, using Butler Scoring, the following occurred in a 14 board match.

South was dealer, but before S bid, West made a preemptive bid of 3H.  Director was called and the options were explained to North (who did not accept the bid out of turn).  The opening bid returned to south who passed.  West chose to pass, as did North andEast, who was precluded from bidding.   When the personal score sheet was returned to the NS pair, the board was discounted for the two pairs involved.  NS felt they had been disadvantaged - EW may have gained an advantage from their infraction) and equity not restored. on the particular board .  They finsihed clearly first in the Event (10 fourteen board matches) and the EW pair may been disadvantaged by discarding the board in the overall result - finished third by a narrow margin.

Two Questions - what should have happened at the table?  What should happen to the overall positions?

[Ed Reppert]

I'm not sure I get "the board was discounted". Do you mean it was thrown out, disregarded? This is wrong â€" the board was passed out, it should have been scored as passed out. In any case, if the OS (EW) gained an advantage from the infraction, and the TD determines that West could have known that would happen, then an assigned adjusted score (Law 12C1{c}) to redress the damage is appropriate. How any of that will affect the overall positions depends on the score, as passed out or as adjusted.

[bluejak]

While true in theory, Ed, there is no way that a person who makes an opening pre-empt out of turn has any reason to be aware it would benefit his side.

As Ed says, the board was passed out, and should have been scored that way.  I wonder whether this is one of those cases we hear about occasionally where a TD or scorer does not understand passed out as a valid score on a board?

[Ed Reppert]

I'll defer to your much greater experience, David, though I think "no way" is an overbid. ;D

[alphatango]

*confused* Does 31A1 not apply here? I would have thought West should have been required to repeat the 3H call after South chose to pass.

[Ed Reppert]

Yes, he should. What happens after that, though?

[Paul Sherman]

You are correct, alphatango. The bid reverts to South and if he passes, West must repeat the call out of turn and there is no rectification or lead restriction should N/S win the auction. He cannot change his call to a pass and as such, the board cannot be scored as passed out.

[Ed Reppert]

This is a clear case of director error. Assuming it's in time (the correction period has not expired), two choices: One, given time available, have them play the board with the correct ruling. Yes, there's a lot of UI. Deal with it. Two, score the board according to Law 82C, A+ to both sides. If the correction period has expired, then there's nothing to be done.

[Paul Sherman]

I have to say, after the TD has allowed West to pass and the board was passed out, there is a good chance the hand may have been openly discussed. Unless they were still in session time and playing (even then I would check that no discussion was held on the hand) I would just award an A+ to both as this was a TD error.

[Ed Reppert]

Certainly if there has been discussion on it, they can't play it over, so yeah, A+ to both would be right.

[alphatango]

I notice 82C only says "adjusted score", not "artificial adjusted score", so it seems to me that there is a further option for the director to adjust the score to 3H making some number of tricks (perhaps weighting various numbers of tricks if necessary), if he believes (among other things) that South would always repeat his pass, that East would not act over Pass-3H-Pass, and that lines of play and defence are relatively clear. Both sides are non-offending, of course, so both get favourable adjustments.

That is, I'm thinking that the director might well adjust to, for example, something like NS+100 for 3H-2, EW-50 for 3H-1. This might not make EW very happy if they now score poorly on the board (or, indeed, NS if +100 still gives them less than 60%), but it does seem fair.

[Paul Sherman]

Average or average+ are adjusted scores; NS+100 and EW-50 are artificial adjusted scores. So what you're thinking won't happen. But it might be interesting if, for instance, every pair plays in 7Hxx making. How can you get an average+ when there is no higher score available (except maybe 7NTxx making or some sacrifice by NS in 7Sx going for a telephone number). And with both S and N passing, East could well have some decent hand there. Just for curiosity, any chance of getting hold of all 4 hands?

[Ed Reppert]

No, Paul. An adjusted score is either "artificial" or "assigned" (see the definitions at the beginning of the laws). An assigned score is the default. An artificial score is awarded when, in jurisdictions that allow weighted scores, the possibilities are too numerous or not obvious (Law 12C1{d}). This should be rare, btw. When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the director awards an artificial adjusted score, which is one of A-, A, A+ according to responsibility for the error (Law 12C2). Because this was director error, no result was obtained, and no result can be obtained if they can't play the board (having discussed the hands, for example). The fact that one can say that West (or whoever it was) should have been required to bid 3H does not mean that the hand would necessarily have been played in that contract, and whether it was or not, predictions about how it might have come out are speculation, at best. No table result can be obtained, so an artificial adjusted score is appropriate.

If you award NS +100 and EW -50, that is a split assigned adjusted score. This is authorized by Law 12C1{f} ("The scores awarded need not balance".)

[alphatango]

I'm not too familiar with this area, so further clarification on your last post would be appreciated, Ed. Here's my line of thought:

I understand the threshold for an assigned score rather than an artificial score is the wording in 12C1d ("the possibilities are numerous or not obvious"). In addition, 12C2 gives a condition under which an artificial score must be assigned: "no result can be obtained". The latter is the one you mentioned in your post.

But here we do have a result -- the board was passed in. It might not have been reached in a legal manner, but that is not unusual after an infraction. (We deal with that all the time in, for example, UI cases.) So I do not yet understand why the director has no discretion in this case to award an assigned score rather than an artificial score where he can meet the 12C1 test.

Nor does it make sense for the director's error to be the critical factor. Both 12A3 ("may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity") and 82C ("if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score") evidently contemplate the possibility of both assigned and artificial scores.

[Ed Reppert]

The result is not a normal one â€" it was obtained through the director's error. Law 82C refers to treating both pairs as "not at fault" for the problem. How do you do that in a world of weighted scores?