For such part !

[Nick Whitten]

What about a revoke?

[Ed Reppert]

If you're asking if a revoke is a serious error, my answer is "rarely, if ever".

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Nick Whitten

An example:

 North         East             South                West
1NT           pass (slow)      pass                 2S (with pass as a LA)
pass          pass             double (SEWOG)       all pass

Suppose 2S makes and 1NT also would have made.

And the scores for NS at the other tables were:
+100
-50
-90
-100
-120
-130
-500

So the score for NS would be

[a] (actual result)           -470            2 MP
[b] (without SEWOG)           -110            6 MP
[c] (without infraction)       +90            12 MP

The example is a great one, just the one we have been looking for, but the conclusion is wrong.

First, let us consider how we calculate it. Just as with weighted scores, we do it in MPs. I know, Ed, we do not look at other scores while deciding how to rule, but we do when applying the ruling as we have decided.

Using your figures above, what scores do N/S and E/W get?

E/W are the offending side, so they get the score ruled back to NS +90, the reverse of N/S scoring 12 MPs, ie they get 2/14 MPs.

N/S are the non-offending side. A full adjustment would be to NS +90 getting them 12 MPs. But we are ruling the double as wild or gambling. So they do not get relief for that part of the damage that is self-inflicted. The double cost the difference between NS -110 and NS -470, which is 4 MPs. So they get (12-4) MPs, ie 8 MPs.

[Nick Whitten]

We appear to have a hung jury.
David recommends adjusting by the number of MPs (or presumably IMPs) the SEWOG cost.
Across the Atlantic Ed recommends adjusting the raw score by the amount the SEWOG cost.
What are we in the middle of the Pacific supposed to do?

I see a problem with adjusting the MPs in that with multiple sections the MPs aren’t readily available.
Consider the NZ-Wide Pairs. This is an event where the same hands are played all over the country and matchpointed across the field to give a national result. (I’m sure other countries run similar events at times).
If this problem occurs in our 6-table group in Morrinsville we will need to know the MPs on this board for Waipukurau, Taumarunui, Ruakokoputuna, Paraparaumu and 50 other clubs all around the country.
No can do (unless there is software available to do that).

[bluejak]

It is pretty poor software if it does not allow for split and weighted scores. Do not forget, Ed is in a jurisdiction where weighted scores are not permitted. But I am surprised at Ed's view: that is not, as far as I am aware, the method that ACBL TDs have used for split scores over the years. Split scores have always been commoner in the ACBL than elsewhere because they treated the differing standards in old Law 12C2 and current Law 12C1E as reaching different adjustments with a fair frequency.

Anyway, if a method is legal, you should follow it, and complain if the software does not allow for it: you do not define legality by the software. Software writers do to define the Laws [thank goodness ].

[Ed Reppert]

Well, I agree that if you're going to score it in MPs, you have to look at the scores at other tables - how else are you going to know what the MPs are? :-) I based what I said earlier on the fact that reference to scoring in MPs was removed from the law in the latest revision. Why did the lawmakers do that if they still thought scoring in MPs is the way to go?

I'm curious how David thinks ACBL TDs have historically calculated split scores.

I do try to remember the difference, when I'm posting here, between 12C1c (weighted scores) and 12C1e (no weighted scores), but it didn't occur to me in this case to weight the scores for NS (only).

[Nick Whitten]

I’m getting more confused now.
Weighted scores weren’t considered in this thread (although there is a similar problem if there is no easy access to all the results).

All agree the offending side (EW) should have a single adjusted score of -90
And the non-offending side should have a single adjusted score of +90 BUT with what their self-inflicted damage cost them taken off. Whether “what their self-inflicted damage cost them” is 360 points (470-110) or the MP difference of those scores (4MP in this case) is the point of disagreement.

To quote David “I know, Ed, we do not look at other scores while deciding how to rule, but we do when applying the ruling as we have decided.”
Here is the problem: How to “look at the other scores” at Waipukurau, Taumarunui, Ruakokoputuna, Paraparaumu etc etc?

[bluejak]

I was merely saying that we have an approach based on other situations where you do not give a single score to both sides so I expect them to be consistent.

I do not know what your particular problem is because I do not know the details. But even if you have to do something strange - as we do with Simultaneous Pairs in England - the important thing is to know what is the correct approach to be followed whenever possible.