Wild?

[duschek]

It has come to my attention that the Law 12C1b term "wild or gambling" has been translated to "vildt satsende" (appr. = "wildly gambling") in the Danish version of the Laws. However, the word "vild" used as an adjective would seem weird in this context. Therefore, could you give a typical example of wild and a gambling action, respectively, so that we might do better next time?

 

(One of them is the well-known "double shot", I am sure - that would be enough of an example).

[blackshoe]

Interesting question. I would say that a wild action is one that has almost no chance of success, while a gambling action is one with a much greater, but certainly not great enough to make the action obvious, chance. Something like bidding a small slam you don't expect to make more than one time in a hundred (wild) versa one that has maybe a 30-40% chance (gambling).

 

OTOH, it's 4:30 in the morning, I can't sleep, and my brain feels like mush, so maybe I'm wrong. :)

[RMB1]

I think both "wild" and "gambling" suggest actions with a large upside if successful but a large downside which means they are against the odds. Both might occur in a double-shot situation because you expect to keep the gain and have an adjustment if you lost.

 

"wild" suggests an action that is an emotional reaction to events at the table

"gambling" suggest a more calculating response to the situation.

 

(At a civilised 11:30am but still not really with it :))

[bluejak]

Are you seriously suggesting 1130 is a more civilised time than 0430?

 

The most obvious example of the wild/gambling approach is the double on no defensive tricks of a contract reached via a BIT. I have never really worried about the difference between wild and gambling before: I merely stress the phrase is 'wild or gambling' so no-one can ever say "It was wild but it was not gambling" [or vice versa] and assume it does not apply as a result.

 

But it seems to me that Robin has it right. If a double as above is made because of bad temper, that is 'wild': if it is made by a player who 'knows' he is getting a ruling in his favour so tries a very speculative double that is 'gambling' Thus it seems to me that the double shot is gambling.

[jallerton]

It has come to my attention that the Law 12C1b term "wild or gambling" has been translated to "vildt satsende" (appr. = "wildly gambling") in the Danish version of the Laws. However, the word "vild" used as an adjective would seem weird in this context. Therefore, could you give a typical example of wild and a gambling action, respectively, so that we might do better next time?

 

(One of them is the well-known "double shot", I am sure - that would be enough of an example).

The nature of the game of bridge is such that players are forced to take gambling actions on every hand. Virtually every call in the auction and many lines of play are gambles to some extent. Therefore the wording of Law 12C1b implying that non-offenders should be denied redress for merely taking "gambling" actions is very poor, in my view.

 

People often misquote "wild or gambling" as "wild and gambling" and Bluejak is quick to correct them. However, as it would appear that all "wild" actions are also "gambling" I don't think the misquoting makes much difference.

 

I rather like the Danish wording, as it seems to me that this better reflects the circumstances in which the law-makers intended redress to be denied.

 

A "wild" action normally occurs when a player deliberately does something off-centre.

 

"Wild" actions include, but are not limited to, double shot attempts.

 

If a player is trying to do his best but does the wrong thing, he has usually not taken a "wild action"; he has made a mistake. If the mistake is fundamental, it could be classed as a "serious error", although then the TD would then need to consider whether or not the "serious error" is "unrelated to the infraction".