I was wondering about a recent hand. The auction concluded. The North player was a novice, and this was his first time scoring. He opened the traveler before the opening lead. Obviously, this is u-a information, since there were already two scores down. Our director ruled that they got an Ave-, and we got an Ave+. I don't agree with the latter.
Why is it that we get an Ave+? Why shouldn't we get a NP? We could've been getting a top, in which case we were denied of that. Also, say it was a completely flat board, same scores all the way. Now, all of other E-W pairs will get an Ave- for being in the right contract, while we're getting an Ave+ for nothing. It just doesn't seem fair that we happened to be playing against that pair when they did that, and got rewarded for being lucky. Help?
I'm assuming that N was not dummy. If N was dummy, I see no real problem, but a simple caution to N would be appropriate.
Given the information you have presented, I believe the director MAY have been wrong, but only slightly -- we'll look at Law 16C.
Law 16C -- Extraneous Information from Other Sources [not partner] 1. [Call the director at the time a player receives accidental UI from outside sources] 2. [Director's options, including] 2(c). allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; 3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board [true], the Director proceeds as in 2(c) above.
So the first question is, was Law 16C2(c) applied? If so, and the director determined that the UI may have affected the result, then we go to Law 12C [Awarding an adjusted score].
For purposes of the remainder of your question, though, we'll assume that Law 16C2(c) was properly applied.
Law 12C1(e) states: (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.
Law 12C2(a) states: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus to a contestant directly at fault, ..., and average plus to a contestant in no way at fault.
So, by law, your score should be A+ (if the director went through Laws 16C and 12C1(d) and (e) properly first).
However, your assumption about the effect on the other E-W scores is incorrect. If an artificial score is assigned (A, A+, A-), the other scores on the board are scored on a lower top and then factored to the proper top. Yes, this means the N/S total and E/W totals do not match. If it was a completely flat board, all the other pairs would still be receiving an exact average score.
Bill -- anything to add or clarify? (And I hope you don't mind me answering this one, as I happened to see it first)
Thanks for your response. For the record, North was defending. One more question: why do we get an Ave+? Isn't that a 60%? Let's say, just for giggles, that N-S was having a really bad day (35%), and we were having a really good day (65%). Now, an Ave+ would actually bring our score down.
"Law 12C1(e) states: (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred."
With that being said, why shouldn't the N-S get a "0", since that was the most unfavorable result? The auction had ended, and they were in a really bad contract (6S dbld on a 4-2 fit). An Ave- would be a really good result for them given the contract, and very bad for us, since we should be getting a solid top. Does the Director have any power to award a specific matchpoint score (such as "0"), or an Artificial Adjusted Score (such as -1400 for down five doubled)?
Regarding the first question, Law 12C2(c) covers that. To wit, "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints. Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained on the other boards of that session."
As to the second question, in most cases (i.e., cases where the hand can be played to get a nominal "bridge result") a director has the power to assign an adjusted score (such as +/-1400) under Law 12A, 12C1(e), and 16C2(c). Technically, a "0" matchpoint score is not a result, and should rarely (if ever) be assigned.
So here's an overview of the steps for this case: 1. Apply Law 16C3. This says to proceed with Law 16C2(c). 2. Consider Law 16C2(c), which allows the possibility to award an adjusted score after play is completed. 3. The result obtained at the table was likely not affected by the UI, so we are done. And if it was, assign an appropriate score (-1400, -1100, -1700, etc. for the offending side).
Notice that ARTIFICIAL adjusted scores (A/A+/A-) are only mentioned in Law 12C1(d) "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious..." and Law 12C2(a) "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained..." (and Law 86, which applies to IMP scoring), and as neither applies here, A/A+/A- should not be considered.
You've made a great answer, with all the I's crossed and T's Dotted. However, I would say, in non-legalese; the director 100% should have allowed the board to be continue being played, and then determined whether the non-offending side was placed at a dissadvantage which was detrimental to the result they obtained on the board.
As a general rule; you cannot determine that damage occurred, until you have an actual result to compare with the estimated result.
The adjustment was correct under the laws, as Nick has proven, but applied too quickly. If a reasonable result is actually obtained, that was almost certainly not achieved by the UI, then there is no actual basis for adjustment under the laws.
Depending on the experience level of the N player, a procedural penalty would certainly be an option, as well, whether the board is adjusted or not.
Also, it should be noted the reason that timing is specified in the law; "after the opening bid, and before completion of play", this is due to the fact that a substitute would not be allowed during that timeframe, but would be, if the first bid had not yet been made.
. Help?