One of the most frequent irregularities causing problems up to the level of Appeals Committees are the decisions in bidding or even play after receiving unauthorised information (UI) from partner, for example by a hesitation. In such cases we do not allow a favourable choice out of logical alternatives that could be based on that UI. This for example means that after a hesitation continuing the bidding to a making slam will not be accepted when pass is a logical alternative (let us say with an expectancy of 1 out of 5). As a consequence the adjusted score for both sides will be based on a game contract. Not the score for six spades just made, but adjusted to four spades making 11 tricks.

There is a feeling this approach is too favourable for the opponents, who now receive a very good score compared with the normal score, being six spades. That is why in the ACBL for example there is some pressure to adjust the score for the non-offending side to that normal score, not giving them a huge score in a case where the offending side most probably had also reached the slam without the hesitation, but the present laws do not allow such a decision. In other words: we should consider an approach in which the adjusted score is more equity oriented, certainly for the non offending side and it might even be the best approach for the hesitating side, but that is less clear (and not suggested by people in the ACBL).

To explore the example given: we could give the opponents a weighted score based on 2/3 bidding the slam and 1/3 not bidding the slam and the offending side either not allowed to bid the slam at all or 1/3 bidding the slam and 2/3 not bidding the slam. Such an approach is only valid if the expectancy is clearly in favour of the slam being reached, let us say at least 75%, but not automatic, meaning there is an alternative that will be chosen once in a while. If the slam is less than 75%, the adjusted score for both sides should be based on the game contract.

Don't lose yourself in the details and numbers given. I am interested in your view about the principle question: should the score for the non-offending side be more equity oriented than it is in the present laws, or should we continue giving the non offenders the very favourable score they receive now?

Ton Kooijman