[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-17, 08:45, said:

Yes, he should, which is exactly why he should be reluctant to let the board be played out if the UI is substantial: It may lead to an assigned adjusted score which is effectively leading to an 80-80 result, which -from the TD's point of view- is much worse than 60-60.

This caught my eye. Why is an 80-80 result "much worse" than a 60-60 result? Why should the TD care at all what it is, so long as it's the result of a correct ruling?

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2013-October-20, 16:29, said:

Although 12c1(f) states that the assigned scores "need not balance", 12c1c states that the weightings should "reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". If 60% of the grand making + 40% of one down is a fair reflection of what might have happened, then those probabilities should apply to both sides' weightings; otherwise the TD is being inconsistent.

If the TD has to award an assigned adjusted score on a contract in which the outcome of a two-way finesse is uncertain and the key card is equally likely to be in either hand, it would be normal to give both sides 60% of the result which is favourable to the non-offenders and 40% of the other. This reflects the probabilities of the two potential results, and gives the non-offenders a bit extra just to make sure that offenders don't gain from their infraction ("sympathetic weighting", as some like to call it).

In this case there are two non-offending sides, so it would be normal to skew the weighting in favour of both sides, and give each side a separate score, as it would in the case of a director's error.

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend and was told it would be normal to give an artificial adjusted score (presumably of 60%-60%) if the players attempted to finish the board but it turned out that the extraneous information affected the play.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2013-October-21, 06:38, said:

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend ...

When I saw "Autumn Congress Final ruling" I assumed this was the last of a number of rulings from VixTD's day at the Autumn Congress. But it was a one-off topic (by a player!)

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2013-October-21, 07:32, said:

When I saw "Autumn Congress Final ruling" I assumed this was the last of a number of rulings from VixTD's day at the Autumn Congress. But it was a one-off topic (by a player!)

Your interpretation would have been headed "Autumn Congress final ruling" not "Autumn Congress Final ruling"

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2013-October-21, 06:38, said:

If the TD has to award an assigned adjusted score on a contract in which the outcome of a two-way finesse is uncertain and the key card is equally likely to be in either hand, it would be normal to give both sides 60% of the result which is favourable to the non-offenders and 40% of the other. This reflects the probabilities of the two potential results, and gives the non-offenders a bit extra just to make sure that offenders don't gain from their infraction ("sympathetic weighting", as some like to call it).

Yes indeed. This I can justify legally. The TD judges that the player will get the 2-way finesse right somewhere between 40% and 60% of the time. In his estimate of the "probability of potential results" he decides to use either the bottom or the top end of that range, depending on which end favours the non-offending side.

Quote

In this case there are two non-offending sides, so it would be normal to skew the weighting in favour of both sides, and give each side a separate score, as it would in the case of a director's error.

It might be normal, but I just don't think it's legal under the 2007 Laws (though I think this approach was legal under the 1997 Laws).

Quote

However, I discussed this case with other directors at the Autumn Congress at the weekend and was told it would be normal to give an artificial adjusted score (presumably of 60%-60%) if the players attempted to finish the board but it turned out that the extraneous information affected the play.

If it's an artificial assigned score and both sides are non-offending, then I agree that Av+ to both sides is what the Law requires.