Brighton Days 9 and 10 - lost weekend

Mentioning my boot in this blog, while wearing my boot at Brighton, has allowed a few more people to put a face to the blogger. If you look on the back page of Sunday's “Brighton Focus” (the daily bulletin) you can see my face in profile: photograph by VixTD.

Saturday flew by: not much time between sessions for the scorers but we did get the evening session scores merged and determined the qualifiers for the final before midnight. Scoring in the playing area and running past midnight can mean competing with the noise from the speedball while performing the (sometimes complex) tie-break procedures to determine the qualifiers.

Scoring the finals on Sunday started with typing in the movement data; surely anyone can type in the movement for eight teams in 7 rounds, someone said later. I agreed that was easy but checking that what you have typed has no errors and will not bring the event to a shuddering halt in round 3 is harder, and takes longer. The movement data was OK and the finals went easily for 6 rounds, except for one incident of less than best behaviour at bridge. But in the last round, bluejak had two rulings at the same table between two teams in contention. We were mentally preparing for appeals and a late finish but nothing happened.

One ruling was a hesitation blackwood (bluejak suggests “BIT-wood”) auction where we ruled that a 2NT opener could pass a sign-off with 3 aces (having showen O or 3). The other ruling was a more complicated misinformation ruling and the result was a weighted score: a lot of a profitable sacrifice and a little of the table result, a making game. The first ruling was a slam swing but the second only swung one IMP because the result at the other table was a making slam.

The finals and the final tidying up was finished in time to relax over a vegetarian meal at Food for Friends: an annual event.

Today's missing link: Fours Stars “B” Final data.

Brighton Day 3 - playing hands for fun and adjustment

Two rulings today involved curious problems in working out how many tricks the players would make (or did make).

One hand declarer said he had made 11 tricks after entering a score for 10 tricks. The TD was trying to deal with three things at once and when they caught up with the defenders they said spmething to the effect of “oh let them have their 11 tricks if they want it so badly”. So perhaps they did not really think they had conceded 11 tricks or perhaps they knew they really had conceded 11 tricks but hoped noone would have to find out how. We looked at the hand and could only see 10 tricks, so the TD went back to the declarer and they described how the defence had contrived to play all their high spades and allow ♠7 to make in dummy for the eleventh trick. So my first instinct was right; “oh let them have their 11 tricks ...” meant yes it was 11 tricks, but we don't want to talk about it!

The other hand involved working out how many tricks West would make playing in clubs.

	J 9 7 6
	A K 10 7 6
	2
	J 9 2
K 8		5 4
J 3 2		9 8 5 4
K J 8 5 4 3		A
5 3		A Q 10 8 7 6
	A Q 10 3 2
	Q
	Q 10 7 6
	K 4

Say North leads ♥A and continues with ♥K and gives South a ruff; the defence still have a trump trick. South can see the diamonds are blocked so now is the best time to play ♠A and another. Perhaps declarer will cross to ♦A and play the last round of hearts while there are still trumps in West. South ruffs with ♣K in front of West but is that the last trump trick? We thought South had to give the lead to dummy with a spade ruff or ♦K and so declarer could take the club finesse, but then we realised that East would only have clubs left and could not even under-ruff to lead the leave in West. Other lines, where the defence do not crash ♥Q are just as bad: an adjustment to 7 tricks in clubs (at least some of the time) was not good for East/West.

No chance to see the Olympics closing ceremony — not sure whether there will be time during the week to catch up on iplayer.

Real damage versus advantage for offending side

An “open invitation” response on Law 12B/C to reinforce the difference between real damage to the non-offenders and any advantage gained by an offending side.

Proposed text for Law 12B1

[New text in italics. First attempt did not work: struck through.]

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. Whereas advantage exists when, following an infraction, the offending side obtains a table result more favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. There is an adjusted score (at least for the offending side) when they have gained an advantage, even if there is no damage There may be an advantage for the offending side, whether or not there is any damage to the nonoffending side, in which case there may still be an adjustment for the offending side — see C1(b).

Proposed additional text for Law 12C1(b)

If all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side keep the score obtained in play.

Phone calls, emails, txts and faxes

Although the obvious work of a national tournament director is done running events, I also do a lot of “work” from home. I get phone calls from everyone: other National directors, other TDs, the local club, and players who have had rulings they don't understand. I get emails requesting rulings or opinions on previous rulings/appeals; and I do get the occasional text message starting “U hold ...” (polling to determine logical alternatives). But I don't get faxes.

Although my telephone number is provided by the English Bridge Union, enquiries come from throughout the British Isles: regular consults from the depths of Wales, players and TDs from Scotland, and the odd ruling from Ireland. Most correspondents are grateful and are apprecriative of the time and effort, even if I don't tell them what they wanted to hear. But recently I did spend 24 hours canvassing opinions on a ruling and then weighing the different opinions to give my ruling; neither side bothered to thank me, although I must have ruled in favour of one of them!

That ruling involved confusion between a Benjamin 2♦ and a weak two in ♦ with inevitable consequences. I had to poll those who played Benji about the logical alternatives for the player who thought 2♦ was Benji, and to poll others who wouldn't play Benji about what the unauthorised information suggested.

Other topics

• How to apply Law 31 when the bid out of rotation was conventional. The answer is in Law 29C but this law is easily overlooked when reading Laws 30 – 32.
• A dispute at trick 13: dummy is on lead and that card will win, but declarer shows his card intending to claim the last trick and the opponents want to accept declarer's card as a lead out of turn (which will lose).
• Does a careful reading of Law 12B1 mean that if the damage is entirely self-inflicted (in the sense of Law 12C1b) there should be not adjustment for either side? (Answer: Yes, but.)
• What to do when an opening two bid does not meet the EBU regulation, do we treat it as an illegal agreement or a deviation from partnership agreement.
• Discussion of a suitable format for Swiss Teams playing around 36 boards.

Application of Law 12C1(b) revisited

I have been called on a number of times recently to advise on the application of Law 12C1(b) — adjustment for non-offending side following self-inflicted damage, due to a SEWoG. I have written a spreadsheet to display the calculations (feedback welcome). As a consequence of writing the software, I now better understand the calculations and I have rewritten my article, which subsequently appeared in the EBU White Book.

Application of Law 12C1(b)

There are scores (for the non-offending side) we have to consider

1. the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
2. the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c)
3. the score for the result that Could have been scored, with the infraction but without serious error

The corresponding scores for the offending side are A', B', C'; at IMPs A' = −A, etc.; at match points A + A' = top, etc.

The overall damage D (= B − A) can be divided as

• Real damage: D_R = B − C
• Self-inflicted damage: D_S = C − A

There are four cases: all damage is self-inflicted, some is self-inflicted, no self-inflicted damage, or no damage at all.

• B ≤ A: no advantage, no damage, no adjustment;
• A < B ≤ C: all damage self-inflicted, no real damage D_R ≤ 0, NOS get A, OS get B';
• C ≤ A < B: no self-inflicted damage, D_S ≤ 0, balancing adjustment, NOS get B, OS get B';
• A < C < B: real damage and some self-inflicted.

In the final case, the OS get B' and the NOS get A + B − C = adjusted score − self-inflicted damage.

Examples

NS bid to 4H and EW “use UI” to compete to 4S, which is doubled. In defending 4SX, NS might revoke (a serious error) and lose a trick they would otherwise score. The result in the other room is NS +50. The expected result in 4H is making, so B (the result before the infraction) is +9 IMP for the non-offending side.

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

A = IMP(100-50) = +2 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-2 NS +300. C = IMP(300-50) = +6 IMP.

Damage D = 7 IMP; real damage D_R = 3 IMP, self-inflicted damage D_S = 4 IMP.

Offending side (team of EW) get −9 IMP, non-offending side (team of NS) get 2 + 9 − 6 = +5 IMP.

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

A = +6 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-3 NS +500. C = IMP(500-50) = +10 IMP. No real damage (D_R < 0).

Offending side get −9 IMP, non-offending side get +6 IMP (table result).

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

A = C = +6 IMP. No self-inflicted damage (D_S = 0). Both sides get ±9 IMP.

4SX-3 NS +500.

A = +10 IMP. No damage. Table result for both sides.

Nuanced artificial adjustments

Brighton 2011 – Day 3

Dodgy claims for breakfast

The rulings started early today: a claim from yesterday appeared in the bulletin and caused much discussion over breakfast. It concerned the issue of whether a statement that “I have winners in spades and clubs” (say) means I will (try to) cash my spades and then my clubs, or whether (in adjudicating such a claim) the TD must allow that you might play on clubs before the spades. I got dragged in late in the day to advise the bulletin staff editor on a responding article to appear tomorrow.

Extending Law 12C2

I gave an artificial adjustment today that I thought extended Law 12C2 with some additional nuances; but a colleague said: “you do realise that is illegal.” A table had run out of time and I stopped them from playing the last board of a round. I had seen the (slow) play of an earlier board, and thought that both sides were to blame. But I could believe that the slowness before that had been the fault of one side only. I could have awarded 50%/50% or 40%/60% for the unplayed board but I decided on 45%/55% in favour of the side that were slow only on one board.

Law 12C2(a) offers the following adjustments:

• average minus (at most 40%): directly at fault;
• average (50%): partly at fault;
• average plus (at least 60%): no way at fault.

I thought my adjustment could be seen as extending this list:

• average semi-minus (45%): mainly at fault;
• average semi-plus (55%): slightly at fault.

I doubt it will catch on.

Junior Teach-in reminiscences

I had two separate conversations about the Junior Teach-in that E attended: the ex-juniors who were juniors then felt old when reminded that it was ten years ago (and E is now 18, awaiting A-level results).

I directed the Saturday evening pairs at that Junior Teach-in, and I have never forgotten the stress of trying to get each move called, even though there was no real pressure from anyone else. Although this evening's events at Brighton were also not “high-pressure”, there was still pressure that they run to time. Once you have fast players who want to play the next round, and slow players who want to finish the last round, the TD will always have his work cut out to keep everyone happy (or at least, not too put out).

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

I have just been consulted on a complicated case that threw up a new question: is the illegal use of unauthorised information (Law 16B) a serious error (in the sense of Law 12C1(b))?

South dealt and opened 1♥, West overcalled 2♣, and North bid 3♠, intended as a splinter, but not alerted. East asked about 3♠ and was told it was natural and preemptive, and then passed. The auction continued to 5♥ doubled, making when West lead a ♠.

The TD found there was misinformation from the failure to alert/explain the splinter, that North/South had used unauthorised information to stop in 5♥, and East/West had used unauthorised information in leading a spade. A club lead would defeat 5♥. Without the misinformation and the use of unauthorised information by North/South, they would reach 6♥ doubled. East may have been able to show spades and attract the disadvantageous spade lead, so the TD adjusted for North/South 50% 6♥X-1, 50% 6♥X-2. We decided the spade lead against 5♥ was illegal and a serious error and was responsible for conceding 5♥X= rather than 5♥X-1.

Result	Score	NS	EW
5♥X=	+650	133	3
...
5♥X-1 / 6♥X-1	-100	15	121
6♥X-2	-300	4	132

Adjustment for NS was 50%x15 + 50%x4 = 9.5MP

The damage due to the serious error was 118MP, so adjustment for EW was (50%x121 + 50%x132) - 118 = 8.5MP

Finally, but not conclusively

Brighton - Day 10

The final day of the Brighton Congress feature the Four Stars teams finals and the conclusion of the rest of the Swiss Teams. In the finals we had lots to do, including several rulings; two rulings threw up questions after they had been given, so as to introduce doubt and uncertainty.

Board 4	9 2
Dealer W	A K 8 5 2
Both Vul	8 6 5
	10 7 3
K 10 6 4		A J 8 7
Q J 3		10 9
A K 4		Q 2
A Q 6		J 9 8 5 4
	Q 5 3
	7 6 4
	J 10 9 7 3
	K 2

East played in 4♠ and lost tricks to ♠Q and ♣K, to reach this position with South on lead.

	--
	A K 8 2
	--
	7
4		J
Q J 3		10
--		--
Q		9 8 5
	--
	7 6 4
	9 7
	--

South lead a small heart, suggesting an honour but South thought he could afford to show length here; dummy played low and North had a good think before winning with ♥K. South then said "I shouldn't have put you through that" (meaning North) and then said "Sorry, I shouldn't have said that".

North is now end-played into establishing the hearts or the clubs. North returned a small heart and East (thinking South had ♥A) said he was one off. "What are you going to do?" asked South, trying to give declarer a chance to recover, but East said he would ruff the heart.

We ruled that the remark was misleading and had misled and that, without the remark, South might realise there was still a chance and discard on the heart, winning in dummy. But we ruled that conceding a trick by ruffing the heart was a serious error (within the terms of Law 12C1b). The result without the serious error would be better than the adjustment (case C ≥ B ≥ A), so the application of Law 12C1b/12C1c resulted in NS assigned 30% 4♠=, 70% 4♠-1; but EW get the table score (100% 4♠-1). The result at the other table was 4♠ making, so NS scored 8IMP and EW scored -12IMP, giving a match result of 8-10VP (on a 20VP scale).

When he heard of the ruling, the chief TD pointed out the wording in the law "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", suggesting that Law 12C1b did not apply. "Then call it 'wild'" we said, or "In Sanremo, Ton said we could ignore the words 'unrelated to the infraction'", or ... . I don't think we were convinced either way.

Board 18	10 8 x x
Dealer E	10 x x x
NS Vul	J
	Q J 8 x
Q J x x x		A
--		A K J 8 x x
A Q 10 x x x x		K 9 8
10		K x x
	K 9 x
	Q 9 x
	x x
	A 9 x x x

I thought I hadn't got the hands quite right — corrected and intermediates added 2010-08-31.

W	N	E	S
		1♥	P
2♦	P	3♥	P
3♠*	P	4♣	P
4♦	P	4NT	P
6♦	P	P	P

3♠ was alerted and explained as a control agreeing hearts. 6♦ appeared to be using unauthorised information from the alert and giving the correct response to Blackwood was a logical alternative. After that the auction might continue ...

...	P	6♥	P
6♠	P	6NT	End

6NT by East will probably make only ten tricks. Of course, other final contracts are possible and other number of undertricks are possible, but we thought 6NT(E)-2 was an equitable result. As game had made at the other table, this ruling represented a 24IMP swing from -13IMP to +11IMP. But the table result was restored on appeal, "No logical alternative" to 6♦, so what do we know.

Some hand are just too difficult

Brighton - Day 7

Today saw some events coming to an end, or at least the end of the middle as Paul has it on The Beer Card blog. The Senior's Swiss Teams completed, the final midweek evening competition was the Mixed Pairs Championship, and the final of the midweek knockout teams is tomorrow afternoon. That just leaves some open pairs and speedball events, and the marathon that is the Swiss Teams.

When a TD has to produce an assigned score, he has to identify a number of potential results and weight them to reflect their probabilities. This can be easy, and it is often possible to assign the score for one result. The potential auctions are usually limited, so there are are only a small number of potential contracts.

Again, the outcome of the a contract may be obvious, especially given the double dummy analysis on the hand records. But sometimes the outcome of a contract played by imperfect players with incomplete information may be far from obvios, and in no way related to the double-dummy analysis.

This is a hand from earlier in the week. We had to an assign a result in 5♣X (by East). It is easy to make 12 tricks by playing for hearts to break with the queen onside. But you may aim for fewer tricks and allow for less favourable lie of the opponents hands.

	9
	Q 5
	A K J 9 5 3
	8 6 4 3
A		Q J 7 6 4 2
J 10 4 3		K 9 8 2
10 8		--
A K Q 10 9 7		J 5 2
	K 10 8 5 3
	A 7 6
	Q 7 6 4 2
	--

After a lead of a spade to the ace, you might play a heart immediately, you might concentrate on taking your diamond ruffs, or you may try something else; and then when you find that clubs are 4-0 you might have to change track. We decided that declarer might not make an overtrick and could go off. Eventually we assigned 5♣=.

This is a hand from today's mixed pairs. During the auction West bid spades twice and East bid clubs and showed spade support. South played in 5♥ on the lead of the ♠K, followed by ♥J to the king. Already, both the defence and declarer might have missed a chance to do better; but this is where we are.

	A
	A J 10 5 2
	10 5
	J 9 3
K Q 10 8 7 5		J 6 2
Q 8 4		7
A J 7		9 8 6 4 2
7		A K 10 5
	9
	K 9 6 3
	K Q 3
	Q 8 6 4 2

Declarer might finesse hearts on the way back or he might play the ♥A and try to take the spade ruffs. It is not clear that taking the finesse and drawing the ♥Q actually gains for declarer. Declare had gone four off after running the ♥J and we assigned 5♥-3.

On both hands however many tricks awarded (within reason) made only a small difference to the match points scored.

A bit like hard work!

Brighton - Day 2

Day two at Brighton was a bit like hard work. We hardly stopped taking rulings, being consulted, delivering rulings, writing appeals forms and running appeals. We also managed other TD duties such as scoring, putting out boards, dealing with lost property and changing table cloths when players spilt their drinks.

I nearly had another Law 27 ruling but another TD beat me too it. The ruling showed what can go wrong if you don't reveal the right bits of information at the right time. North opened 2NT and South (in turn) bid 2♦. The TD arrived and South said she had made a mistake: away from the table South said her mind had been elsewhere, she either meant 2♦ as a response to 1NT, or she mistakenly thought 2♦ was the way to transfer to hearts over 2NT; either way 2♦ "was" a transfer, showing hearts.

The TD returned to the table, and said that West could accept 2♦ but if they did not South could bid 3♦ that would not silence partner. West did accept 2♦ and passed, and now North had information that 2♦ meant the same as a sufficient 3♦, that is, it showed hearts. This was information that North (and East/West) were not entitled too and had been generated by the TD.

North/South duly bid to the usual 6♥ contract and East/West felt damaged. We were forced to rule "Director's Error" (Law 82C) and awarded North/South the result at the table and East/West a percentage of NS not bidding slam. Without the information from the TD, North would have to guess what 2♦ showed and sometimes this would involve North/South having uncertainty as to level or strain.

Oops!

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling - the shudder test

I did have an unauthorised information ruling that gave a non-trivial example of the calculations in Law 12C1b (an article that now forms part of the EBU White Book).

W	N	E	S
		1NT	P
2♦	X	2♥	P
P	2♠	3♥	P
P	P

1NT was weak, South's first pass was after an agreed hesitation, 2♦ was a transfer, X showed diamonds ("lead directing"), and 3♥ was not a good bid (down 3). One TD described the "shudder test" for an action to be considered "a serious error, wild or gambling": if when you describe the action, someone physically recoils, then it can be considered SEWoG. We ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 2♠ (and to the Double) and these actions were suggest over Pass by the hesitation. We also ruled that the 3♥ bid had contributed to EW's bad score and without it, NS would play in 2♠+1.

So the offending side, NS, got an adjusted score of 2♥-2. EW got the score for 2♥-2 less the damage due to bidding 3♥. 2♥-2 (NS +100) scored 52:54 match points, 2♠+1 (NS +140) scored 77:29 MPs, and 3♥-3 (NS +150) scored 100:6. So the damage due to the 3♥ bid was 23 MPs and so NS got 52 MPs and EW got 54 - 23 = 31 MPs.

Application of Law 12

There is still some strange wording in Law 12 covering what was previously described as the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage; "subsequent" damage could have been due to wild or gambling action by the non-offending side, by their serious error, or just "failure to play bridge". However, I think the effects are clear: for the offending side (OS) we adust if they obtain a table result better than they would have without the infraction; but the non-offending side (NOS) do not get an adjustment for damage which is self-inflicted, defined as due to a serious error or wild or gambling action (WoGA).

In practice there are four cases: all damage is self-inflicted, some is self-inflicted, no self-inflicted damage, or no damage at all. There are scores we have to consider

1. the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
2. the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c or Law 12C1e)
3. (≥ A) the score for the result that Could have been scored, with the infraction but without serious error (could be weighted?)

The overall damage can be divided as

• Real damage: D_R = B − C
• Self-inflicted damage: D_S = C − A

Starting from C ≥ A there are four cases

• C ≥ A > B: no advantage, no damage, no adjustment;
• C ≥ B ≥ A: all damage self-inflicted, no real damage D_R ≤ 0 (virtual damage), NOS get A, OS get B;
• B > C = A: no self-inflicted damage, D_S = 0, NOS get B, OS get B;
• B > C > A: real damage and some self-inflicted.

In the final case, the OS get B and the NOS get A + B − C. The adjustment for the non-offending side can be seen as either

• actual score + real damage: A + D_R = A + (B − C); or
• adjusted score − self-inflicted damage: B − D_S = B − (C − A) = A + B − C.

Examples

NS bid to 4H and EW "use UI" to compete to 4S, which is doubled. In defending 4SX, NS might revoke (a serious error) and lose a trick they would otherwise score. The result in the other room is 4H=, NS +420. This is the normal result in 4H, so B (the result before the infraction) is 0 IMP. The type of adjustment depends on the table result.

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

A = IMP(100-420) = −8 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-2 NS +300. C = IMP(300-420) = −3 IMP.

Real damage D_R = 3 IMP, self-inflicted damage D_S = 5 IMP.

Offending side (team of EW) get 0 IMP, non-offending side (team of NS) get 0 + (−8) − (−3) = −5 IMP.

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

A = −3 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-3 NS +500. C = IMP(500-420) = +2 IMP. No real damage (D_R < 0).

Offending side get 0 IMP, non-offending side get −3 IMP (table result).

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

A = C = −3 IMP. No self-inflicted damage (D_S = 0). Both sides get 0 IMP.

4SX-3 NS +500.

A = +2 IMP. No damage. Table result for both sides.