WHITE BOOK 2004 EBU Tournament Directors' Guide Edited by ...

White Book – November 2003 – Chapter IV
N/S use unauthorised information to reach 4: if they had not used it they would only
have reached 2. It always makes, however E/W find a stupid sacrifice using a “wild,
gambling bid” with no possible justification. The Director judges that they expect to get
a ruling if it does badly, and hope for a very fine score if it happens to be cheap. This is
known as a “double shot” attempt. The non-offenders do not get redress, and keep
their score. However the offenders get an adjustment back to 2 making ten tricks.
Note This is the WBFLC’s interpretation. In England we tend to be slightly more
sympathetic to the non-offending side. We only deny redress in the case of
‘wild or gambling action’, not irrational, and only where there is at least the
possibility of the double shot. See #12.1.3(b) and #12.2.
[WBFLC minutes 1998-08-30#2]
12.10 Law 12C2 [Assigned adjustment - general] [WBFLC]
The word “likely” in this Law should not be forgotten when assigning for non-offenders.
[WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#2]
This Law allows the adjustment to be done either by assigning in matchpoints or by
altering the total points prior to the matchpointing. However, that does not mean that
this supersedes the first sentence of this Law, which tells the Director how to assign.
So if a Director states that a pair will receive 60% of a top [or 42%, or +430] that is
because he believes that award represents [for example] the most favourable result
that was likely had the irregularity not occurred for a non-offending side. What he
should not do is to just give a pair 60% [or 42%, or +430] without reference to the
objectives in the first sentence of Law 12C2; whether assigned in total points or in
matchpoints the adjusted score should reflect the Director’s assessment of these.
A single score must be given for each side under this Law. Jurisdictions that permit the
use of Law 12C3 may use that Law for weighted adjustments.
[WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#2]
12.11 Law 12C3 [Assigned adjustment - weighted] [WBFLC]
While there is no Law change the Committee does not object to a Zonal or national
organisation permitting this Law to be applied by Director in charge of a tournament.
In England, TDs are allowed to use this Law, and this is an example from there. A
Ghestem bid was misdescribed as spades and hearts when the correct description was
hearts and clubs. The non-offenders [E/W] doubled 4H, which went one off. However,
they would probably have played in their spade fit if they had not been told their
opponents had spades. The problem is that they would make 12 tricks about 60% of
the time, 11 tricks the rest and they might bid slam, but staying in game is more likely.
Under Law 12C2, a Director would have to decide whether 6S making was likely: if so
he would assign that, if not he would assign 4S +2. With Law 12C3 the Director
assigned:
10% of 6S-1, NS +100
+ 20% of 4S+1, NS –650
+ 40% of 4S+2, NS –680
+ 30% of 6S=, NS –1430
This is called a weighted score, as against a split score [see Law 12C2] where the two
sides get different scores. Split and weighted scores are possible: see #82.1 for an
example.
29