Long pause for thought which worked

[duschek]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=st765hkj753d2cakt&w=sqj9842htda73c763&e=sk3ha94dq9654c952&s=sahq862dkjt8cqj84]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Danish Pairs Championships, E/W co-favourites for the title, N/S recent champions though not in the primary group of contenders.

 

West opens 2♠ (constructive weak two, 8-11 HCP), North passes. Now East thinks for appr. one minute before passing. South then decides to pass.

 

South is not happy when seeing dummy and calls the TD after play has finished. Your ruling?

[gordontd]

What was East thinking of doing?

[duschek]

East was not familiar with playing constructive weak twos. Was considering whether to raise to 3♠ directly; the hand might still belong to their side.

[pran]

Ugly - ugly :angry: :P :(

[Codo]

I hate the delay from East.

 

But I would never give south another score then the table score. To pass with his hand is IWOG to me.

Make the hand without the ace of spades and he has a case.

[campboy]

Obvious law 73F case (and a lecture for East). Even if we consider South's action IWoG, we should still adjust for EW.

[mrdct]

East clearly ought to have known that his tank could deceive NS and appears to have achieved precisely that end. I'm adjusting this to NS 4♥+1.

[gwnn]

Doesn't look like IWOG to pass with that hand with a lot of points in spades and red/red MP. I don't know what I'd do at the table, it would depend on the vibe RHO was sending.

[jdonn]

No matter what happens for EW, NS sure don't get anything. South doesn't get to decide to stop playing bridge no matter how they tank.

 

That said what E did was dispicible and I'd find any legal way I could to punish him for it. Is his excuse really that he is not familiar with his own system, which seems very simple anyway? He needs to be familiar with his system to know that 9 + 8-11 with no distribution is not game?

[gordontd]

For South to pass, after a long pause by East, seems neither wild nor gambling to me. Double would be normal without the misleading pause, but there's no compulsion on South to wander in to an auction when the table action suggests that -200 or -670 are the most likely outcomes.

[jdonn]

I never understood this whole "wild or gambling thing". Wild seems to refer only to overbids, can severe underbids never be wild? And every action is gambling. I really think it should be more like "highly against the odds" or "highly unusual for the class of player involved" or something.

 

Take south's action. I don't think "wild" is the right word. Is it gambling? Sure, just like any action would be. But I know it's strange, it's terrible bridge, and that even if east had north's ace AND king of clubs he would be making 3♥. South's action is highly against the odds, highly unusual, and I won't let him take it back.

[mjj29]

I never understood this whole "wild or gambling thing". Wild seems to refer only to overbids, can severe underbids never be wild?

Well, it can certainly be a "serious error", which is the other criteria

[Cyberyeti]

I never understood this whole "wild or gambling thing". Wild seems to refer only to overbids, can severe underbids never be wild? And every action is gambling. I really think it should be more like "highly against the odds" or "highly unusual for the class of player involved" or something.

 

Take south's action. I don't think "wild" is the right word. Is it gambling? Sure, just like any action would be. But I know it's strange, it's terrible bridge, and that even if east had north's ace AND king of clubs he would be making 3♥. South's action is highly against the odds, highly unusual, and I won't let him take it back.

Yes if north has 5 hearts then not doubling will be bad.

 

There are several things that W could have been thinking about. If he is thinking about a raise, then clearly you want to double almost all the time, although even so partner might have a 4333 hand which won't play well.

 

If he's not thinking about raising (he's just short of bidding a suit himself or a 2N enquiry) then it could easily be disastrous to bid. As an extreme example, you could be moving 2S minus some to 3 of a suit tick. Give partner say QJ97xx, void, xxx, xxxx and W an 0643 14-15 count for example.

 

I don't think passing is wild and gambling.

[gordontd]

I never understood this whole "wild or gambling thing". Wild seems to refer only to overbids, can severe underbids never be wild?

Well, it can certainly be a "serious error", which is the other criteria

No, the other criterion is "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)".

[bluejak]

Perhaps we could consider the legal side. IWoG is an outdated term: it stands for irrational wild or gambling, which is no longer the standard. Irrational is irrelevant. SEWoG is the approach nowadays, a serious error, or wild or gambling action.

 

Second, people often say "wild and gambling": no, it is one or the other [or both]. If you consider an action gambling but not wild that is still sufficient to deny redress.

 

Third, yes, the terms are not wholly unambiguous, but we should try to use them and saying all actions are gambling, while true in one kind of way, is definitely not helpful. I think using the term with sense and judgement gets the right feel for it. If you just make a crazy bid, surely that is "wild"? If, on the other hand, you try a double which will get you a very good score if it works, hoping for a ruling if it does not, then that is "gambling". If you forget your system that is a "serious error".

 

Fourth, while it may not matter on this hand, SEWoG does not mean we automatically do not adjust for that side: it means they do not get the portion of the loss which was caused by the SEWoG so they may get some redress.

 

And finally, please remember the normal adjustment these days is a weighted score: are you sure that without the hesitation N/S would reach 4♥?

[jdonn]

SEWoG is the approach nowadays, a serious error, or wild or gambling action.

Perfect then I consider the pass a serious error.

 

Third, yes, the terms are not wholly unambiguous, but we should try to use them and saying all actions are gambling, while true in one kind of way, is definitely not helpful.

I wasn't trying to be helpful, I was trying to learn something. I hope that doesn't offend you.

 

And finally, please remember the normal adjustment these days is a weighted score: are you sure that without the hesitation N/S would reach 4♥?

Quite sure, how could north not bid game if south doubles? He would often make opposite x Qxxx xxxx QJxx.

[cherdanno]

And finally, please remember the normal adjustment these days is a weighted score: are you sure that without the hesitation N/S would reach 4♥?

Uuuuh yes! X and 4♥ are both blindingly obvious.

[hanp]

I don't think that it is a serious error for south to pass after east thinks for ONE MINUTE.

[aguahombre]

South was not happy with East. But, they are on the same side of the "bridge vs. Poker" issue.

 

Though, South didn't read his opponent very well, this time, his extremely anti- percentage pass might have worked. East gets an Oscar nomination, which is o.k, in Poker.

 

South will not be happy keeping the table result, either --but he deserves it. East should quietly accept an adjustment to 4H+1, and not draw further attention to what he did.

 

While I was writing this, Hanp posted. He has a good point, but it is only good enough, IMO, to let South get his deposit back ---not to win an appeal.

[jdonn]

I don't think that it is a serious error for south to pass after east thinks for ONE MINUTE.

I do! Let's give east north's ace of clubs, that might be something like a ONE MINUTE pause, right? Well NS still make GAME.

 

I mean I know your point is that a minute is a very long time in this context and that is true. But that doesn't suggest east's hand is stronger than a short pause would, just that it's a closer decision.

[qwery_hi]

I don't think that it is a serious error for south to pass after east thinks for ONE MINUTE.

I do! Let's give east north's ace of clubs, that might be something like a ONE MINUTE pause, right? Well NS still make GAME.

 

I mean I know your point is that a minute is a very long time in this context and that is true. But that doesn't suggest east's hand is stronger than a short pause would, just that it's a closer decision.

Agree 100%.

 

Similar hand that I played had East with a spade void and a 2 minute tank. I doubled with the south hand having Ax of spades, and the opponents ended up in 3 somthing X for a big plus for us.

[bluejak]

And finally, please remember the normal adjustment these days is a weighted score: are you sure that without the hesitation N/S would reach 4♥?

Uuuuh yes! X and 4♥ are both blindingly obvious.

I consider double blindingly obvious with the tank. For a player who is prepared to pass it with the tank, are you sure for such a player double is blindingly obvious if there was no tank?

[barmar]

What about the law that says that South takes inference from East's BIT at his own risk?

 

This is why there should be split scores, or at least a PP to EW. East shouldn't be allowed to profit from his hesitation, but South took a risk by assuming East had his tank.

[dburn]

What about the law that says that South takes inference from East's BIT at his own risk?

 

This is why there should be split scores, or at least a PP to EW.  East shouldn't be allowed to profit from his hesitation, but South took a risk by assuming East had his tank.

You, East, hold

 

♠None ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣xxxxx

 

West opens the bidding with a constructive weak two bid in spades, North passes. What action do you take?

 

Well, you should pass after (say) ONE MINUTE. Then, when South with

 

♠A ♥Qxxx ♦KJ10x ♣QJ8x

 

passes also, you will incur only a procedural penalty instead of the rather larger penalty you would have incurred had you not chea... er, had you not failed to fulfil your obligations under the Laws.

 

There shouldn't be any split scores. North-South should be given plus 650; East should be read whatever the Danish is for the Riot Act; and South should not play poker for a living. Fortunately, at the bridge table he does not have to.

[jdonn]

you will incur only a procedural penalty instead of the rather larger penalty you would have incurred had you not chea... er, had you not failed to fulfil your obligations under the Laws.

Are there limits on procedural penalties? If so, why? As a director I would gladly give this east a procedural penalty larger than the largest possible score obtainable on a board.