[jhenrikj]

A player chooses from two different leads. After making his choice and the dummy is spread it's obvious that the player has been misinformed and that with correct information he might have chosen the other lead. The director awards a weighted score of 60/40 for the "correct" lead...

Is it really correct to assign a weighted score in such situations?. The player giving the MI has gained from it. The worst thing that can happened is that the other lead is obvious with correct information and then he has lost nothing compared by giving the correct information. If the lead was not obvious he has made sure that he at least not will pay the full cost of the correct lead.

I think that giving weighted scores in such situations is very similar with Reveley rulings. I think that weighted scores should only be given to situations not related to the irregularity. Your opinions?

[jallerton]

It's not the same as a Reveley ruling at all. We adjust to what might/would have happened had the irregualrity not occurred. In UI cases, if the action taken at the table is deemed to be illegal, then the adjusted acore can only take into account legal actions by the player in possession of UI.

In MI cases, we are considering what actions might have been taken by the non-offedning side had the irregualarity not occurred. For the non-offending side, all 13 cards are possible legal leads, so (if you believe in weighting scores at all) assigning fair percentages to different plausible opening leads seems the best way to restore "equity" (where "equity" is the expectation without the irregualrity occurring).

Quote

If the lead was not obvious he has made sure that he at least not will pay the full cost of the correct lead.

True, but if the opening lead was not obvious, he has also made sure that he will not receive the full benefit of a less succesful opening lead.

[Bbradley62]

Suppose a hand where all 13 Souths get to the same contract playing matchpoints. We'll even say that the auction was identical at all 13 tables. 10 Wests make the lead that sets the contract; 2 Wests make an alternate lead that allows the contract to make. At the 13th table, the action is as described by OP. If the director decides that NOS had a 5/6 chance of making the killing lead without the MI (consistent with, but not relying on, the fact that 5/6 of the other Wests made it) and a weighted score is assigned at that table, the NOS gets only 2 matchpoints out of 12 and the OS gets 10. That hardly seems right.

Or, do they weight 5/6 of the MPs the killing lead would have earned (7 of 12) and 1/6 of the MP the failing lead would have earned (1 of 12) and both NOS and OS get 6 of 12?

[blackshoe]

As I understand it, when you weight a score, you weight the MPs (or IMPs or VPs), not the raw scores.

[jhenrikj]

jallerton, on 2011-June-11, 14:43, said:

True, but if the opening lead was not obvious, he has also made sure that he will not receive the full benefit of a less succesful opening lead.

Playing a MP competition you might need 20% the last round to win....by giving false information now you increase your chances of winning because unless the leads are obvious you do not risk that your opps will find the right lead.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-11, 16:59, said:

As I understand it, when you weight a score, you weight the MPs (or IMPs or VPs), not the raw scores.

You weight the basic form of scoring (MPs or IMPs), not the VPs.

[jallerton]

jhenrikj, on 2011-June-12, 01:47, said:

Playing a MP competition you might need 20% the last round to win....by giving false information now you increase your chances of winning because unless the leads are obvious you do not risk that your opps will find the right lead.

Yes, that did occur to me as a theoretical possibility. In that respect, the wording of 1997 Laws 12C2/12C3 was better as under those the TD/AC "may vary an assigned score to do equity" but did not have to.

Of course, if the TD judges that the misinformation was deliberate, the player giving the misinformation should be given a PP, which will not help his score in the scenario you cite.

Perhaps the TD could also use Law 23 if he feels that the offender has gained from an apparently deliberate infraction.

[bluejak]

jhenrikj, on 2011-June-12, 01:46, said:

Playing a MP competition you might need 20% the last round to win....by giving false information now you increase your chances of winning because unless the leads are obvious you do not risk that your opps will find the right lead.

I do not think that the fact that a player may use a particular Law to cheat is a reason not to have that Law.

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-11, 16:53, said:

Suppose a hand where all 13 Souths get to the same contract playing matchpoints. We'll even say that the auction was identical at all 13 tables. 10 Wests make the lead that sets the contract; 2 Wests make an alternate lead that allows the contract to make. At the 13th table, the action is as described by OP. If the director decides that NOS had a 5/6 chance of making the killing lead without the MI (consistent with, but not relying on, the fact that 5/6 of the other Wests made it) and a weighted score is assigned at that table, the NOS gets only 2 matchpoints out of 12 and the OS gets 10. That hardly seems right.

Or, do they weight 5/6 of the MPs the killing lead would have earned (7 of 12) and 1/6 of the MP the failing lead would have earned (1 of 12) and both NOS and OS get 6 of 12?

Top is 24. The bad lead is made because of UI, so the MP table reads:

10 pairs get plus score, 15 MPs each
3 pairs get minus score, 2 MPs each

We adjust to the non-offenders getting the better lead 5/6 of the time. Now we have the following MP table:

10.83 pairs get plus score, 14.17 MPs each
2.17 pairs get minus score, 1.17 MPs each

So the pairs who beat the contract get 14.17 MPs each, the ones that did not get 1.17 MPs each, and the pair with the adjusted score gets 5/6 of 14.17 plus 1/6 of 1.17, ie 12.00 MPs.

[jhenrikj]

bluejak, on 2011-June-12, 09:18, said:

I do not think that the fact that a player may use a particular Law to cheat is a reason not to have that Law.

I do not see why we should give the offending side the benefit of a doubt by giving them a weighted score....

Law 12B1

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

By giving a weighted score we do not do that...they keep some of their advantage...

[bluejak]

First, you do not know that: perhaps they would do better, perhaps worse, that is why we weight the scores, because we do not know.

Second, that is what the Laws say. If you think the Laws are wrong, fine, but this is not the forum to discuss that.

[Bbradley62]

jhenrikj, on 2011-June-12, 12:03, said:

I do not see why we should give the offending side the benefit of a doubt by giving them a weighted score....

Law 12B1

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

By giving a weighted score we do not do that...they keep some of their advantage...

To continue using the numbers from the example above...
Director has determined that before the infraction, defender had a 5/6 chance of finding the right lead; because of the infraction, OS gained an advantage in that NOS's chance of success became smaller and the defender actually made the wrong choice. Therefore, to restore equity, the director takes away OS's ill-gotten advantage and returns the probabilities to what they were before the infraction.

It sounds like you want there to be a punishment instead of simply restoring equity. If director thinks OS does these things too often or deliberately, that would be a separate issue.