[blml] Split score

[Adam Beneschan]

Laszlo rote:
 
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> >I think this is wrong.  If the contract should have been at 4S, but
> >the opponents bid 5H because of the misinformation, then you adjust to
> >what the result would have been at 4S.  You don't consider what
> >actually happened at 5H---unless, of course, they made 5H, and then
> >you let the NO's keep their good score.  But even if they go down more
> >than they should have, it doesn't matter.  If the irregularity (the
> >MI) had not occurred, the contract would have been 4S, and the result
> >of 4S is what the NO's are entitled to, according to the Laws.
> >  

. . . . . 
 
> OK, I see you wold'nt adjust a split score in this #3 as well, but I 
> think that's the classic example.

Not to me; I don't think this is the appropriate occasion for a split
score.  To me, a split score would be appropriate if we think that
there was a 75% chance that the NO's would have bid 5H anyway, even
with the correct information.  Now, we might rule that the NO's get
whatever score they get in 5H (since it's most probable that they
would have bid it anyway), but the offenders get the score for 4S-2
(since there's enough of a chance that the NO's would have passed).
This is when the Laws call for a split score.  But in a case where
there's a 0% chance that the NO's would have bid 5H if they had been
given the correct information, I don't think that's a split-score
situation (even if the NO's botched the play in 5H).  I'm interested
to hear what others say about this, though; is it the practice of TD's
to give split scores in this sort of situation?

                                -- Adam