[blackshoe]

In North America, the ACBL has decided to prohibit weighted scores when awarding an assigned adjusted score. Weighted scores are authorized in Law 12C1{c} (unless, as the ACBL has done, the RA prohibits them). 12C1{d} then says "if the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the director may award an artificial adjusted score." I have always read this as applying to the situation where weighted scores are authorized (and indeed the norm). I was very surprised the other day to read on r.g.b that someone in North America is of the opinion that 12C1(d) also applies where 12C1(e) is the rule. What do others think?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-01, 17:47, said:

In North America, the ACBL has decided to prohibit weighted scores when awarding an assigned adjusted score. Weighted scores are authorized in Law 12C1{c} (unless, as the ACBL has done, the RA prohibits them). 12C1{d} then says "if the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the director may award an artificial adjusted score." I have always read this as applying to the situation where weighted scores are authorized (and indeed the norm). I was very surprised the other day to read on r.g.b that someone in North America is of the opinion that 12C1(d) also applies where 12C1(e) is the rule. What do others think?

I find the words "in place of" pretty convincing.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure that answers the question. Certainly you can't use both 12C1c and 12C1e simultaneously (or for that matter in any way in the same jurisdiction), but what about 12C1d?

[barmar]

I think the way you're supposed to interpret it is that 12C1e replaces 12C1c when the RA makes the election. Then you read 12C1d as applying to the substitutions.

In this case, "numerous" doesn't apply, but "not obvious" is still possible.

[blackshoe]

Okay. What leads you to that conclusion?

[campboy]

Are you allowed to use 12C1d? Of course you are, it's in the lawbook and it's not the bit that the RA has the option to drop. Will you need to? As barmar says, it's less likely than it might be in another jurisdiction, but still possible when it is not obvious which outcomes you should be considering.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 01:30, said:

Okay. What leads you to that conclusion?

Which part, that numerous doesn't apply, or that not obvious still could?

I don't think that numerous applies, because 12C1e doesn't require enumerating all the possibilities. You only have to figure out the extremes of the various types of results, the number of other results is not relevant.

But it can still be difficult to estimate the results that meet the criteria in 12C1e, so "not obvious" may still apply.

I suppose you could say that not obvious could happen because of too numerous -- maybe you say to yourself "almost anything can happen, who knows which are likely?" But this seems more like just a special case of not obvious.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 08:59, said:

Which part, that numerous doesn't apply, or that not obvious still could?

I don't think that numerous applies, because 12C1e doesn't require enumerating all the possibilities. You only have to figure out the extremes of the various types of results, the number of other results is not relevant.

But it can still be difficult to estimate the results that meet the criteria in 12C1e, so "not obvious" may still apply.

I suppose you could say that not obvious could happen because of too numerous -- maybe you say to yourself "almost anything can happen, who knows which are likely?" But this seems more like just a special case of not obvious.

Neither part. "Then you read 12C1d as applying to the substitutions".

I understand the logic behind "'not obvious' may apply", but one step at a time here.

@Campboy: "It's in the law book" is not, IMO, good enough. There is, after all, a lot of stuff in the law book, most of which does not apply to this question.

[barmar]

But when 12C1e is used, there are at most 2 substitutions (one for the OS, one for the NOS). Could 2 really be too numerous?

Or are we supposed to be enumerating all the possibilities, from which we then select the substitutions fitting the 12C1e criteria? Is that what could be too numerous?

[blackshoe]

I don't think "too numerous" applies to 12C1{e} situations, although "not obvious" may.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 21:10, said:

I don't think "too numerous" applies to 12C1{e} situations, although "not obvious" may.

Isn't that what I said, to which you replied "What leads you to that conclusion"?

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 21:10, said:

I don't think "too numerous" applies to 12C1{e} situations, although "not obvious" may.

barmar, on 2012-April-03, 13:53, said:

Isn't that what I said, to which you replied "What leads you to that conclusion"?

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 12:22, said:

Neither part. "Then you read 12C1d as applying to the substitutions".

I understand the logic behind "'not obvious' may apply", but one step at a time here.

I was asking what led you to the conclusion that 12C1d applies to 12C1e adjustments.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 16:08, said:

I was asking what led you to the conclusion that 12C1d applies to 12C1e adjustments.

12C1e says it's applied in place of 12C1c. So I interpreted that as meaning that we read Law 12 as containing 12C1e where 12C1c is currently located.

[blackshoe]

Finally! An interpretation that makes sense!

Okay, Stephanie alluded to the same in post #2, but it wasn't clear to me then what she meant.

The poll results were eight to one (and the one was for "don't know, it seems ambiguous" rather than "no") for this reading, so I guess I'll have to go along. Although I'm still concerned about some TDs using it as a way to avoid actually doing their job, rather than solving a legitimate problem.