[BudH]

(1H)-Pass-(2H)-2H-"Director, please!"

No mechanical error, second 2H bid cancelled (intended as Michaels, spades and unknown minor). Director fails to allow a 3H replacement which would mean the same thing (despite being told by the player of the desire to bid 3H). Director requires offending player's partner to pass throughout and asks offender to substitute a legal non-double call.

After completion of the board, the Director becomes aware of his error (possibly due to an appeal).

How is the Director error dealt with if the event is

1. Matchpoint pairs
2. IMP pairs
3. Knockout or Swiss?

[helene_t]

If the result is 2S+1 or some such it is possible that we can let result stand.

I don't think we can award ave+ to both sides after the board has been completed.

[pran]

BudH, on 2017-January-17, 04:01, said:

(1H)-Pass-(2H)-2H-"Director, please!"

No mechanical error, second 2H bid cancelled (intended as Michaels, spades and unknown minor). Director fails to allow a 3H replacement which would mean the same thing (despite being told by the player of the desire to bid 3H). Director requires offending player's partner to pass throughout and asks offender to substitute a legal non-double call.

After completion of the board, the Director becomes aware of his error (possibly due to an appeal).

How is the Director error dealt with if the event is

1. Matchpoint pairs
2. IMP pairs
3. Knockout or Swiss?

Law 82C said:

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

If the Director is able to assume a probable outcome on the board had he given the correct ruling he should adjust the result on the board accordingly.
However I find this very unlikely (given the nature of the Director's error here) and the Director then has no other option than to cancel the board and award Ave+ to each side.

(Note that the Director may not award a split score letting the table result stand for a side for which this result is very favourable (better than Ave+) unless the table result is probable also without the Director's error.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 04:31, said:

If the Director is able to assume a probable outcome on the board had he given the correct ruling he should adjust the result on the board accordingly.
However I find this very unlikely (given the nature of the Director's error here) and the Director then has no other option than to cancel the board and award Ave+ to each side.

I don't see why. We know what the next call would have been and can assess likely continuations, giving weighted scores including all the likely outcomes, with different weightings for each side to give them each the benefit of doubt. A+/A+ strikes me as a lazy first solution.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 04:49, said:

I don't see why. We know what the next call would have been and can assess likely continuations, giving weighted scores including all the likely outcomes, with different weightings for each side to give them each the benefit of doubt. A+/A+ strikes me as a lazy first solution.

When the auction has just got underway, this is very difficult and the Laws state:
12C1(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

Also, there is no meaning to the auction 1H-(Pass)-2H-(2H), so 3H does not mean the same, but this is a problem with the regulation that one never has agreements for IBs. If we follow accepted practice that we allow 3H, Michaels, there will still be a huge number of possible continuations. If you poll people to see what they would now bid on the next hand, there might be, say, four choices, on the next hand four more, and on the next hand four more again. Also in the play there will be a large number of choices at each play. I would estimate that there could be as many as a million weighted scores, perhaps four or five of different scores arising from different bidding sequences and play sequences. I might well be tempted to follow the lazy first solution.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-January-17, 05:21, said:

there will still be a huge number of possible continuations.

There might be, or there might not. I think it's worth checking first before resorting to giving artificial scores.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2017-January-17, 05:21, said:

When the auction has just got underway, this is very difficult and the Laws state:
12C1(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

That may be the case (and I agree with Gordon that we have to investigate that first), but why should this result be Ave+/Ave+?

Perhaps opener already won the board by choosing a 1♥ opening (e.g. instead of pass or 2♣). When the possible outcomes range from 60% to 100%, there is no justice in giving them the "benefit of the doubt" by awarding Ave+ (which usually means 60%).

We need to turn this Ave+/Ave+ autopilot off.

Rik

[pran]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 04:31, said:

If the Director is able to assume a probable outcome on the board had he given the correct ruling he should adjust the result on the board accordingly.
However I find this very unlikely (given the nature of the Director's error here) and the Director then has no other option than to cancel the board and award Ave+ to each side.

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 04:49, said:

I don't see why. We know what the next call would have been and can assess likely continuations, giving weighted scores including all the likely outcomes, with different weightings for each side to give them each the benefit of doubt. A+/A+ strikes me as a lazy first solution.

I simply do not understand this argument as I clearly wrote: If the Director is able to assume a probable outcome on the board had he given the correct ruling he should adjust the result on the board accordingly. (See above)

In my opinion the correct ruling would have been (after explaining all options available) to accept a replacement bid of 3♥ (Michael's) as an artificial call having the same or more precise meaning as the IB, had this been legal.

But now the Director must consider several different options:
1: The IB being accepted by LHO
2: The IB being replaced by 3♥ after which the auction would continue normally
3: The IB being replaced by any other legal call (what apparently is what happened).

And he would have to assess all possible (rational) outcomes from alternatives 1 and 2 (he already knows the outcome from alternative 3) and give reasonable weights to each and all of them.

I don't believe awarding Ave+/Ave+ is a lazy solution, I think it normally will be the only (reasonable) solution.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2017-January-17, 07:31, said:

That may be the case (and I agree with Gordon that we have to investigate that first), but why should this result be Ave+/Ave+?

Perhaps opener already won the board by choosing a 1♥ opening (e.g. instead of pass or 2♣). When the possible outcomes range from 60% to 100%, there is no justice in giving them the "benefit of the doubt" by awarding Ave+ (which usually means 60%).

We need to turn this Ave+/Ave+ autopilot off.

Rik

If you're going to award an artificial adjusted score, you have to award average plus to both sides. Law 82C tells the director to treat both sides as non-offending, which means not at fault, and 12C2 tells him to award average plus to a pair not at fault. IMO "already won the board" is irrelevant in this case.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-17, 09:09, said:

If you're going to award an artificial adjusted score, you have to award average plus to both sides. Law 82C tells the director to treat both sides as non-offending, which means not at fault, and 12C2 tells him to award average plus to a pair not at fault. IMO "already won the board" is irrelevant in this case.

I think we would be adjusting under 12C1d in such a case, not 12C2.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 07:36, said:

But now the Director must consider several different options:
1: The IB being accepted by LHO
2: The IB being replaced by 3♥ after which the auction would continue normally
3: The IB being replaced by any other legal call (what apparently is what happened).

And he would have to assess all possible (rational) outcomes from alternatives 1 and 2 (he already knows the outcome from alternative 3) and give reasonable weights to each and all of them.

I don't believe awarding Ave+/Ave+ is a lazy solution, I think it normally will be the only (reasonable) solution.

Why do we have to consider all those possibilities? It seems that LHO already refused the IB. And the player has said that they would have bid 3♥ had the director allowed it. So why wouldn't he just try to figure out what the likely result would have been from option 2?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-January-17, 10:25, said:

Why do we have to consider all those possibilities? It seems that LHO already refused the IB. And the player has said that they would have bid 3♥ had the director allowed it. So why wouldn't he just try to figure out what the likely result would have been from option 2?

Indeed.

[mycroft]

This is a case where the move (in the ACBL, been this way elsewhere for a decade) to 12C1c will assist in not looking like "huge windfall!" or "need to find the exact auction necessary".

The player will replace 2♥ with 3♥ which should be spades and a minor. Opener will double, pass, bid 4♥ or 3♠ (or something else, but likely only one of those 4) as his hand warrants. There might be possibilities here, but not likely more than two and there should be a heavily favoured one. TD should check on what double means, by the way (NLD?) LHO will do the right thing (which might be pass after double). Again TD should check what that means if necessary (do they play "bid to forced level weakest action" here? Is 3♠ a "default action" here, or an active choice of spades?) Likely after those two hurdles are overcome, the list of possible landing spots are limited; figure out what happens in the play. Weight the options according to L82C (remember the "sympathetic weighting to the NOS" may apply) and go from there.

I do have a question though - if it turns out that what happened at the table was to the benefit of the IB side (i.e. if the TD in his misexplanation actually pushed them into doing something better than what would "legally" have happened), does "treating that side as non-offending" allow us to leave them the table result? If so, does that force us to leave the table result for the non-IB side (that seems wrong, but they might have been all up in arms about not getting to bid 3♥ freely, but when everything makes 7 tricks and +50 is suddenly better than -200, then "of course, it would have been nice to know we could bid 3♥, but we'd never do it with *this* hand" :-)

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 09:30, said:

I think we would be adjusting under 12C1d in such a case, not 12C2.

Um. 12C1{d} leads directly to 12C2. Did you mean 12C1{c}?

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-January-17, 10:25, said:

Why do we have to consider all those possibilities? It seems that LHO already refused the IB. And the player has said that they would have bid 3♥ had the director allowed it. So why wouldn't he just try to figure out what the likely result would have been from option 2?

Because all players' choices after an error are void when the Director has given incorrect information on the options after that error.

The Director who has made an erratic ruling must consider every alternative action that might have been chosen by either side with the correct handling of the case by the Director.

Here that includes the possibility that LHO might eventually have chosen to accept the IB and the possibility that the offender might have chosen various different (alternative) replacement calls with correct information from the Director (if LHO had still chosen to not accept the IB).

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-17, 13:20, said:

Um. 12C1{d} leads directly to 12C2. Did you mean 12C1{c}?

No. I see no reference to 12C2 in 12C1d and no indication that the artificial scores assigned under 12C1d are limited to the narrow range mandated in 12C2.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 15:53, said:

No. I see no reference to 12C2 in 12C1d and no indication that the artificial scores assigned under 12C1d are limited to the narrow range mandated in 12C2.

There is an implied cross reference between 12C1d and 12C2:

12C1d simply allows the Director to award an artificial adjusted score in certain situations.

12C2 specifies how the Director shall proceed when awarding artificial adjusted scores and it includes a reference to 12C1d to make it clear that 12C1d cases are indeed subject to this procedure.

[BudH]

gordontd, on 2017-January-17, 10:27, said:

Indeed.

Because insufficient bidder's LHO needs to be informed his RHO will be able to bid 3H Michaels BEFORE he decides if he is going to accept the 2H IB?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-January-17, 16:09, said:

There is an implied cross reference between 12C1d and 12C2:

12C1d simply allows the Director to award an artificial adjusted score in certain situations.

12C2 specifies how the Director shall proceed when awarding artificial adjusted scores and it includes a reference to 12C1d to make it clear that 12C1d cases are indeed subject to this procedure.

That's not how I read it. 12C2 specifies how to proceed when a result has been unable to be obtained. It also notes the existence of 12C1d, which applies in other situations, when a result has been obtained.

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2017-January-17, 21:59, said:

Because insufficient bidder's LHO needs to be informed his RHO will be able to bid 3H Michaels BEFORE he decides if he is going to accept the 2H IB?

No, though he can ask the meaning of a 3H bid in this auction.