[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2011-January-30, 18:30, said:

Are these really conflicting? I do not think so. One talks about what the alert means, one about adjustments for damage.

Take a simple case:

---

5B5 tells you what the lack of alert means, namely that 2♥ is not alertable.

5H1 tells you whether you are likely to get redress by assuming it is natural in the face of common sense.

I see no conflict.

Not quite. 5B5 tells you that either the opponents have no agreement about the meaning of two hearts; or that they have an agreement and their agreement is that it is natural.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-31, 16:26, said:

Not quite. 5B5 tells you that either the opponents have no agreement about the meaning of two hearts; or that they have an agreement and their agreement is that it is natural.

Not quite. 5B10 also tells you from the lack of an alert that the partner is not going to treat 2H as alertable if they have no agreement. In effect, it is either natural, or they are going to treat it as natural, which is effectively the same.

[barmar]

5H1 sounds to me like it's similar to ACBL's "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" rule.

[bluejak]

Of course it is. The ACBL and EBU do not disagree about everything!

These regulations are merely meant to help with interpretations of the Laws on MI. Basically they are saying that damage is not caused by MI when it is caused by an experienced player's failure to protect himself adequately.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2011-January-27, 17:37, said:

Did the TD ask South why he did not bid at the table, but feels that he would have bid 3♠, had he been given the correct explanation? If so, what was the reply?

Without knowing the answer to this question or the reasoning behind the initial TD ruling, and without the benefit of consultation/polling, I can't be sure what I would do if I were on the AC. However, my gut feeling is that if the 3♥ bid showed a limit raise with 4 trumps rather than a semi-pre-emptive one, that would not make bidding 3♠ any less attractive.

What did the AC decide?

[Jeremy69A]

The appeal committee decided

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not
b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

This post has been edited by Jeremy69A: 2011-February-16, 08:01

[lamford]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-16, 07:47, said:

The appeal committee decided

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not
b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

I agree with (a) but not with (b), pretty much for the reasons Dburn gave in #86 of Claim in a Grand Slam of Simple Rulings. The failure to alert 3♥ was not a heinous infraction, and 3 IMPs is probably more than half of the average adjustment made by ACs. It seems disproportionate to the offence.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

The failure to alert 3♥ was not a heinous infraction, and 3 IMPs is probably more than half of the average adjustment made by ACs. It seems disproportionate to the offence.

I mostly agree. I would not have hit the pair with a fine because they were not experienced tournament players and,as you say, it was not a heinous crime, however if I had done so then it would have been the standard which, in this case, is 3imp's

[blackshoe]

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-28, 11:04, said:

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

I am not aware of any variation from the standard amount of a PP. I was referring to the average adjustment made by the TD or AC in a teams event, based on my experience.

Although the Laws spell out the effect of "shall not" and "must not", they are not consistent in their severity. For example:

"Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,"

Later we have:

C. Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible

On that basis, you would give a PP for all revokes, but only consider a PP for holding the cards in a manner that gave partner information about the heart suit.

[blackshoe]

Not my part of the ship. Talk to the WBFLC.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-February-28, 11:36, said:

I am not aware of any variation from the standard amount of a PP. I was referring to the average adjustment made by the TD or AC in a teams event, based on my experience.

Isn't the "average adjustment" a pretty meaningless measure? Or do you mean the "average adjustment given that they do not keep the table result" ? In the latter, I think it's more than 3 imps on average. For the former, I'd have guessed somewhat less than 3 imps because it's quite common for at least one of the TD and AC to keep the table result.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-28, 18:24, said:

Isn't the "average adjustment" a pretty meaningless measure? Or do you mean the "average adjustment given that they do not keep the table result" ? In the latter, I think it's more than 3 imps on average. For the former, I'd have guessed somewhat less than 3 imps because it's quite common for at least one of the TD and AC to keep the table result.

I was thinking of those that came before ACs, so the average will include those that are not adjusted; and I confess I did not trawl through the appeals booklets to check out my estimate. It might, as you say, be less than 3 IMPs. Perhaps the standard fine is too large - it seems that 3 IMPs for failure to alert a pre-emptive raise is too harsh. I have been involved in many a match where the margin was less than that, and would be unhappy to win or lose by such a fine. Is the standard fine not 10% of a top for matchpoints - which seems less punitive?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-28, 11:04, said:

If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

Are you referring to Lamford's post? He indicated that 3 IMPs was more than half the amount normally given. It is true that "twice" is "more than half", but if the former is meant, the latter would be a strange way to express it.

[blackshoe]

The EBU defines the "standard" adjustment in 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) cases to be ±3 IMPs for Average -/Average +. If ACs are awarding something other than the "standard" amount in such cases, somebody needs to investigate why that is, and whether ACs need further training in how to do their jobs.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-28, 19:53, said:

The EBU defines the "standard" adjustment in 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) cases to be ±3 IMPs for Average -/Average +. If ACs are awarding something other than the "standard" amount in such cases, somebody needs to investigate why that is, and whether ACs need further training in how to do their jobs.

Lamford's not suggesting that - he's trying to make a different point. He's saying that the "standard amount" seems very big, given that the "average score adjustment resulting from a ruling, including those where the table result stands" is less than 6 imps. He's also saying that 3 imps seems like 'more' than 10% of a top.

On a 24-board pairs event, 10% of a top is a bit under 0.5%. I have no evidence to back this up at all, but I would have thought that the winner of a 24-board pairs event is separated from 2nd place by under 0.5% about as often as a 24-board match is determined by less than 3 imps. But that's just my gut feel (and of course winning margin is not the only relevant thing to consider).

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-February-28, 18:38, said:

Perhaps the standard fine is too large - it seems that 3 IMPs for failure to alert a pre-emptive raise is too harsh. I have been involved in many a match where the margin was less than that, and would be unhappy to win or lose by such a fine. Is the standard fine not 10% of a top for matchpoints - which seems less punitive?

There would be little point in giving a fine if it never made the difference between winning or losing a match.

The standard fine in IMP-pairs (which is a better comparison with matchpoints than is teams) is 2 IMPs.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

It is not typical in England to fine a pair for failing to alert. Most committees take into account the experience of the pair which is why I don't agree with this referee.
If you do decide to fine then, as DBURN said earlier in the thread, you should fine whether you adjust the score or not. Appeal committees often do not do that which is where, perhaps, education is needed.
There is no evidence that appeal committees or referees are giving anything less than the standard fine.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-March-01, 01:45, said:

Lamford's not suggesting that - he's trying to make a different point. He's saying that the "standard amount" seems very big, given that the "average score adjustment resulting from a ruling, including those where the table result stands" is less than 6 imps. He's also saying that 3 imps seems like 'more' than 10% of a top.

On a 24-board pairs event, 10% of a top is a bit under 0.5%. I have no evidence to back this up at all, but I would have thought that the winner of a 24-board pairs event is separated from 2nd place by under 0.5% about as often as a 24-board match is determined by less than 3 imps. But that's just my gut feel (and of course winning margin is not the only relevant thing to consider).

Your estimates seems reasonable, but the penalty is much less likely to matter in a pairs event. It would need the 0.5% to change your position from 1st to 2nd, although some might care whether they got the 13th or 14th prize; firstly you need to be leading before the penalty for it to matter. If it changes the result of a match, it seems much more significant; I recall a Spring Fours match being decided by the 3 IMPs North was penalised for East taking out North's cards! I believe the EBU changed that regulation soon after. The 2 IMPs in an IMP pairs seems fairer, and there it will only matter if you are in contention. And as Jeremy69A said, 3 IMPs for an inexperienced pair failing to alert was too harsh. Is there any reason why one has to award a standard PP or none at all?

[blackshoe]

As I read the regulation, the "standard" amount is a guideline, not a requirement. So the TD (or AC) could award a different amount. I do think "none at all" completely disregards the law, and so is not appropriate.

It may not be typical to award a PP for failure to alert - or for that matter for failure to do other things that one "must" do. That doesn't make it right.