How about Law 12C1C for the ACBL? Split from Another revoke at the club
#1
Posted 2012-March-01, 20:15
My concerns (not trolling) are that:
--it would be used as a hedge to sort of adjust, rather than being a reflection of the TD's studied and genuine judgement.
--if we adapted weighting at this late date, there would be at least a year's worth of highly inconsistent rulings.
--perhaps weighting should only be allowed in specific categories of rulings
Your opinion? If you would rather move this question to "changing", or would rather not answer at all, o.k.
#2
Posted 2012-March-02, 06:03
aguahombre, on 2012-March-01, 20:15, said:
My concerns (not trolling) are that:
--it would be used as a hedge to sort of adjust, rather than being a reflection of the TD's studied and genuine judgement.
--if we adapted weighting at this late date, there would be at least a year's worth of highly inconsistent rulings.
--perhaps weighting should only be allowed in specific categories of rulings
Your opinion? If you would rather move this question to "changing", or would rather not answer at all, o.k.
I think that 12C1c (weighted scores) is a better approach than 12C1e (most favorable result for NOS, least favorable for OS). I think the ACBL has stuck with 12C1e out of reluctance to change more than anything else (my guess, based on impressions only). I think that, given the ACBL's abysmal record wrt club level TD training, at least (I can't speak to tournament level TD training, because I have no idea what there is beyond word of mouth), your first two concerns are very important, particularly at club level, and probably at tournament level as well. I'm not sure how to address your third concern. In what categories should weighting be allowed, and in what not? Why?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2012-March-02, 08:34
blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 06:03, said:
I was thinking that weighing the probabilities of different contracts might be a good thing, but that deciding the actual number of tricks to be taken in a particular contract, when the ruling already is weighted for multiple contracts would get to be too convoluted.
#4
Posted 2012-March-02, 13:31
I don't think this idea is workable.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2012-March-03, 09:29
blackshoe, on 2012-March-02, 13:31, said:
I don't think this idea is workable.
Maybe not, but it is what is done, now. The number of tricks awarded in an adjusted contract is a number of tricks in ACBL, not a figure based on a percentage of the time one or the other number of tricks will be taken.
It just would seem a bit much to figure a percentage for arriving at two or three different contracts, and then another weighten calculation for the result of each contract.
#6
Posted 2012-March-03, 10:53
aguahombre, on 2012-March-03, 09:29, said:
It just would seem a bit much to figure a percentage for arriving at two or three different contracts, and then another weighten calculation for the result of each contract.
Come on, Agua. You think I'm not well aware that the ACBL doesn't use weighted scores? That has nothing to do with how weighted scores work. Sure weighting takes a little work. So what? It's not about making life easy for lazy directors.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#7
Posted 2012-March-03, 12:36
blackshoe, on 2012-March-03, 10:53, said:
I understand, and it will probably never happen anyway. Was just thinking it would be too much, too fast, for the vast majority of ACBL directors---not really a matter of laziness, more a matter of frying their brains .
#8
Posted 2012-March-03, 15:18
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#9
Posted 2012-March-12, 14:16
blackshoe, on 2012-March-03, 10:53, said:
It's not very difficult if you have a scoring program that allows you to just enter each score and the percentage assigned to it.
#10
Posted 2012-March-12, 14:21
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2012-March-12, 14:58
blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 14:21, said:
Right. Yes that's harder! Best to get a consultant (or several) to perform this task. Which is usually what happens.
#12
Posted 2012-March-12, 20:49
aguahombre, on 2012-March-02, 08:34, said:
I don't see why. My guess is that you have failed to realise how much easier adjustments are with weighted scores. Why? Because the absolute accuracy which is unobtainable is not needed.
You get a situation where you have MI, and a pair defend 4♥ doubled as a result. They claim they would "obviously" bid and make 6♠, which is on a guess. The values are pretty meager for getting to slam.
You decide they would certainly play the hand, making 11 or 12 tricks, and might bid the slam but you are doubtful. You get a few views on the bidding and the play, and come to the conclusion that the players would have bid the slam about one time in three - say 30% - and made twelve tricks about 60% of the time. So the results seem to be:
6♠ = 18%
4♠+2 42%
4♠+1 28%
6♠-1 12%
Using sympathetic weighting, assuming the score in the other room was 4♠ +2, NS +480, you give the players
. 25% of 6♠ =, NS +980, .25 x 11 imps = 2.75 imps
+ 45% of 4♠+2, NS +480, .45 x 0 imps = 0 imps
+ 20% of 4♠+1, NS +450, .20 x -1 imps = -.2 imps
+ 10% of 6♠-1, NS -50, .1 x -11 imps = -1.1 imps
Total 1.45 imps, rounded to 1 imp.
Now you find people do not agree with your weighting, and you start to worry. People think it would be bid 40% of the time, and made 65%. So it could be more like
6♠ = 26%
4♠+2 39%
4♠+1 21%
6♠-1 14%
Using sympathetic weighting, assuming the score in the other room was 4♠ +2, NS +480, you give the players
. 30% of 6♠ =, NS +980, .30 x 11 imps = 3.3 imps
+ 40% of 4♠+2, NS +480, .40 x 0 imps = 0 imps
+ 20% of 4♠+1, NS +450, .20 x -1 imps = -.2 imps
+ 10% of 6♠-1, NS -50, .1 x -11 imps = -1.1 imps
Total 2.00 imps, rounded to 2 imp.
That made a huge difference, didn't it? The point is that over-worrying about the absolute accuray of the weightings is pointless - you are talking very little differences.
Now we cross the Atlantic.
6♠ = 18%
4♠+2 42%
4♠+1 28%
6♠-1 12%
At all likely? 18%? No, not enough. So the non-offenders get 0 imps, since they get 480.
How about this?
6♠ = 26%
4♠+2 39%
4♠+1 21%
6♠-1 14%
26%? that's ok, so now the non-offenders get 11 imps.
The point is that ACBL TDs need to be super-accurate in borderline cases when adjusting, because of the enormous swing a small likelihood causes: other TDs have it much easier because weighting does not need to be so accurate.
The sad thing is there are a lot of TDs this side of the Atlantic who do not use weighting not realising it makes life simpler and easier for them!
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#13
Posted 2012-March-12, 21:08
#14
Posted 2012-March-13, 09:15
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>