Long pause for thought which worked

[campboy]

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.

The purpose of that law is, I think, that if East does have a bridge reason for thinking but South misinterprets it there is no adjustment. However, law 73F says that we should adjust the score if East had no bridge reason and could have known that it might work to his advantage, both of which are obvious in this case. How to adjust the score is covered in 12C, with redress denied to NOS only in the cases bluejak described.

[bluejak]

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.

If LHO thinks for a long time as dealer and passes, and I assume he has 11 or 12 HCP for a borderline opening, and take a two-way finesse the wrong way, I get no redress if he had seven spades, was wondering whether to pre-empt, but decided it was too dangerous with the actual hand. If he hesitates, he has a reason, I reach the wrong conclusion, tough luck.

 

But that does not mean I do not get redress if his hesitation was illegal. In fact, Law 73F tells us to adjust.

 

A split score? Why? You split the scores when the Laws tell you to split the scores. So you split the scores when you give a ruling in a Law 12C1E jurisdiction when the two standards in Law 12C1E reach different adjustments, you split the score in any jurisdiction when Law 12C1B tells you to, ie if there is a SEWoG, and you split the score when a board is cancelled and Law 12C2 tells to issue unbalanced artificial scores. Any cases I have missed?

 

So, in this case, you decide whether the hesitation breached the Law. If so, you adjust under Law 73F if there was damage. And when you adjust you use Law 12C1B or 12C1E as part of your adjustment and split the score if those Laws tell you to.

 

<mutter> Please :) pretty please :D can we remember this for next time? The question is asked every time we get a Law 73F case.

 

Since this was Denmark, Law 12C1E does not apply, so you split the score if the non-offender's actions were SEWoG.

 

;)

 

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.

There are no legal limits, but why should you? If you consider his actions have gained him illegally, you adjust, not give a PP. That is what adjustments are for.

 

So the only legal thing wrong with such a PP is that you are not following other Laws: you believe there is an infraction, you believe there was damage, and you are not prepared to follow the correct Law [73F]. That's illegal.

[MFA]

Hmm, I played the tournament and only hear about the incident now. But I do recognize the deal.

 

Anyway I think my judgement would be that south was misled by an illegal hesitation but that NS should be denied redress. So a split score.

 

I think I would characterize south's decision not to double as "wild" rather than a "serious error". After all it is a judgement decision and "serious error" sounds more like an objective mistake.

 

South has a model take-out double with 1-4-4-4 13 hcp. It's not really bridge not to double. Even after a hesitation from 3rd hand.

[mich-b]

Why do most posters think that East's thought makes doubling (by South) less attractive?

Couldn't East be thinking about a preemptive raise with a ♠ fit , and weak (or moderate) hand? Isn't this type of hand more likely (for East) than a strong , opening+ hand with no fit?

[aguahombre]

Why do most posters think that East's thought makes doubling (by South) less attractive?

Couldn't East be thinking about a preemptive raise with a ♠ fit , and weak (or moderate) hand? Isn't this type of hand more likely (for East) than a strong , opening+ hand with no fit?

No, I would guess that there is no hand with 3 or more spades where an East with any experience would break tempo and then pass. But that doesn't change how I feel about South's pass.

[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.

There are no legal limits, but why should you? If you consider his actions have gained him illegally, you adjust, not give a PP. That is what adjustments are for.

 

So the only legal thing wrong with such a PP is that you are not following other Laws: you believe there is an infraction, you believe there was damage, and you are not prepared to follow the correct Law [73F]. That's illegal.

You sure assume to know a lot about what I'm assuming. Also your response has nothing to do with my comment in any case, save for the first sentence which I appreciate you clarifying for me. So in response to dburn, that scenario you suggest is of no concern.

[JLOGIC]

I would not consider passing wild or a serious error after a 1 minute tank.

[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.

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?

Yes I am 100% sure. I mean N/S are not beginners or intermediates according to the original post. Everybody knows that you double 2S in this situation with a 1444 13 count.

I really don't understand how you can question this.

 

OTOH, how to factor in RHO's tank is not something that bridge players discuss very often. What can RHO have? Typically a good hand with short spades, which could make doubling very dangerous (especially given how bad some of our suits are). In situations that bridge players don't discuss that often, their actions will vary a lot more than in frequently encountered situations, and even very good players will sometimes do things that other very good players would consider blatant errors.

[JLOGIC]

I don't get it. If RHO passes in normal tempo, then doubling has the upside of finding a partial or a game or defending 2S X etc etc. Sometimes we will get doubled (or not) and go for -200 or more, oh well. The times we gain are obviously far more frequent than the times we lose.

 

If RHO thinks for a minute and we exclude cases where they're coffee housing, a large majority of the time they have a good hand with short spades. The rest of the time they might have a 1 suiter of their own (and short spades), or a good hand with 2-3 spades.

 

In all of those cases they have a good hand. Our danger of getting doubled and going for the dreaded -200 at MP is far higher, and our chances of making a partial or a game or pushing them to 3S-1 becomes much lower. So the risk/reward has changed.

 

Calling passing "wild" seems wrong to me. It is as if you're saying we should be catering to RHO coffee housing. When he is not coffee housing, I think pass is not only not wild but percentage. But even if you don't think it's percentage surely you can see why south might reasonably do such a thing, even if south is one who would always double without the hesitation.

 

Aren't we supposed to give south the benefit of the doubt anyways if it's close?

[dan_ehh]

Completely agree with JLOGIC's post.

Add my vote to 4H+1 for both sides. Maybe also a penalty for east.

[jeremy69]

Aren't we supposed to give south the benefit of the doubt anyways if it's close?

 

But it is not (at least in my view). I don't care how long the man on my right thought for I would double. I've given up trying to work out what they think about anyway.

[jdonn]

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action. And anyway the tank can just as easily be a moderate hand with support as a strong hand without support. Or what if RHO has strength with a spade void and there is partner with 6! spades waiting for our double?

[jallerton]

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.

 

I agree that we should consider the legal side. As Gordon explained succinctly in the post prior to yours, the approach is not "a serious error, or wild or gambling action". Instead the Law says "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction), or wild or gambling action".

 

Thus in this case, if East's pause is deemed to be an infraction and South's pass is deemed to be a "serous error", then South should not be denied redress as, quite clearly, South would have doubled had East passed in tempo and the "serious error" was therefore related to the "infraction".

 

If you forget your system that is a "serious error".

 

Not in England, where we follow the guidance in the EBU White Book 2010.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

· Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

· Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in

ruling a contested claim.

· Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously

not the percentage line.

· Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such

as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

[NickRW]

If you forget your system that is a "serious error".

 

Not in England, where we follow the guidance in the EBU White Book 2010.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

· Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

· Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in

ruling a contested claim.

· Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously

not the percentage line.

· Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such

as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

If those are not serious errors, what, pray tell, is?

[jallerton]

Bridge is a game of mistakes (several mistakes are made on most hands played around the world), so errors should be expected. Just because an error is obvious enough to have been spotted by the TD, that does not necessarily make it a serious error.

 

To answer your question directly, I can point you to the previous paragraph of the EBU White Book:

 

12.8.3 "Serious Error”

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following

types of action would be covered:

· Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major

penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

· Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against

a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be

considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are

expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing

so.

· An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as

a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

[jdonn]

So just to be clear, failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count is un-blatantly ridiculous then?

[cherdanno]

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action. And anyway the tank can just as easily be a moderate hand with support as a strong hand without support. Or what if RHO has strength with a spade void and there is partner with 6! spades waiting for our double?

A moderate hand with 3 spades may tank to decide between bidding 2NT and 3S. I have never seen anyone tank with 3 spades and pass.

[NickRW]

To answer your question directly, I can point you to the previous paragraph of the EBU White Book:

Well, thanks for taking the trouble to cut and paste that. Not your fault, of course, but it seems to me that someone was playing with language when they wrote that. What I mean is, for example, a "revoke" - I thought that was against the rules - not just an error, serious or otherwise.

[jdonn]

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action. And anyway the tank can just as easily be a moderate hand with support as a strong hand without support. Or what if RHO has strength with a spade void and there is partner with 6! spades waiting for our double?

A moderate hand with 3 spades may tank to decide between bidding 2NT and 3S. I have never seen anyone tank with 3 spades and pass.

Sorry but I think that's rubbish. In fact I have seen tanks on quite weak hands with 3 spades then pass here.

[rogerclee]

I have nothing interesting to add to this thread, but I would pass 2S out after a one minute tank specifically at these conditions (r/r MP).

[barmar]

Aren't we supposed to give south the benefit of the doubt anyways if it's close?

 

But it is not (at least in my view). I don't care how long the man on my right thought for I would double. I've given up trying to work out what they think about anyway.

That's why it's often recommended to poll players. You don't want your rulings to be based on just your own style and bridge judgement.

[JLOGIC]

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action.

I don't understand this point of view. Normal actions are normal because of the information available to you at the time. For instance:

 

3S p p ?

 

It is completely normal to bid 3N with 3334 16 HCP with a spade stopper, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

However if RHO tanked over 3S it would be pretty terrible to bid 3N, because we have new information that RHO has a problem. Yes it's possible that bidding 3N is still the winner but it is now just an anti percentage bid, whereas before it was possible 3N was wrong but it is just a percentage bid.

 

This is a similar situation. Doubling is normal, but given the information available from RHOs hesitation, I highly doubt it is percentage to double. At the very least it is made less attractive.

 

What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something.

 

Yes, this could be exploited by RHO tanking only when he wants you to pass, but that is illegal and why the laws exist. Yes maybe a very savvy RHO could exploit you by only tanking on hands with 3 spades and moderate values as you suggest, and nothing else, and probably win the ruling, but he would still be cheating even if he didn't get caught. In general I will assume people are not coffee housing me, and have the appropriate %age of hands that they usually have based on experience (most often being a good hand with short spades). I don't think it's up to me to protect against RHO cheating me here.

[bluejak]

To answer your question directly, I can point you to the previous paragraph of the EBU White Book:

Well, thanks for taking the trouble to cut and paste that. Not your fault, of course, but it seems to me that someone was playing with language when they wrote that. What I mean is, for example, a "revoke" - I thought that was against the rules - not just an error, serious or otherwise.

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke? :)

[NickRW]

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke? :)

I thought it was an infraction.

[MFA]

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action.

(...)

What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something.

(...)

Josh included the word such, which stresses that it is a case of judgement in each concrete situation. A long pause can talk us out of actions, we would otherwise had taken, that's why the tank might be illegal in the first place, but there is a limit to what redress we can get.

 

The wording ("SEWoG") is new so we are essentially on our own as to what's included by it. We have to go with what's fair.

 

EBU has made an effort to interpret the words, which is great, but, for instance, I'm surpriced how gross the error has to be before EBU considers it a "serious error". It sounds more like a description of a "very serious error" to me.

 

Anyway, the EBU interpretations are only binding in the EBU jurisdiction.

 

The recent changing of the laws from "IWoG" to "SEWoG" seems to me to strongly suggest that the provision is to be used more often and thus more split scores are to be handed out in these kind of situations than in the old days. It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG".