[BLML] Weighted Score adjustment.

David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu
Tue Dec 1 05:05:05 CET 2009

"Grattan" <grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> In Maastricht, 2000, I was seeking to persuade the appeals
> committee of the merits of weighted adjustments.  Eventually
> the committee consented to adopt the method subject to a
> condition allowing  inclusion of a proportion of the score that
> was the outcome of the infraction if it were judged a proportion
> of players of like standard would make that call in an untroubled
> auction. So if 30 in 100 such players would make the call the
> outcome should be entered as to 30% in the weighting. It was
> considered that if the objective of weighting is equity, not
> punishment, equity calls for its inclusion.

This is not equity, because it gives a higher score to a player who infracts the 
laws than to a player who obeys them.

Consider the example which started this thread: the contract makes six on a 
non-club lead and four on a club lead.  West had UI which suggested a club lead, 
and say 30% of Wests would lead a club anyway, so there is a logical 
alternative.   If West obeys Law 16B1 and leads a non-club, he is -480.  If he 
violates Law 16B1 and leads a club, he is 70% of -480 and 30% of -420; even if 
West is given a procedural penalty (very unlikely for taking a 30% action), the 
non-offenders are worse off because of West's infraction.

More information about the Blml mailing list