Swiss Pairs ruling (EBU)

[gordontd]

Gordon, is this advice documented and available? It would be a helpful resource for directors and appeals committees (and contentious forum members).

Unfortunately it's not, though it might be if/when the EBL update their website at http://eurobridge.org/departments/directing/courses.html and display the course information as they have in previous years. I wrote to them about it a couple of times after the course (which was more than a year ago now) but then gave up. Perhaps someone else would like to ask.

 

I've found the information from previous years to be very useful. In particular there's a very interesting paper (on another topic) given by Bill Pencharz.

[lamford]

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

I have to agree that I was completely wrong in thinking that it was a serious error not to make 11 tricks in spades as you think that 5S has no play.

[bluejak]

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

I have not looked at it particularly carefully, but I do not see the point: since it is not blindingly obvious how to make eleven tricks, it is not a serious error not to.

 

Unfortunately it's not, though it might be if/when the EBL update their website at http://eurobridge.org/departments/directing/courses.html and display the course information as they have in previous years. I wrote to them about it a couple of times after the course (which was more than a year ago now) but then gave up. Perhaps someone else would like to ask.

It took about nine months to even get Gordon's [and my] name onto the website.

[Vampyr]

I have to agree that I was completely wrong in thinking that it was a serious error not to make 11 tricks in spades as you think that 5S has no play.

 

Serious error not to make it/has no play... surely it's not even worth quibbling about.

[Cascade]

I have not looked at it particularly carefully, but I do not see the point: since it is not blindingly obvious how to make eleven tricks, it is not a serious error not to.

 

I suspect that if many of the players on this forum were in 5♠ in a teams match and failed and the other table made 5♠ so they lost 10 or 13 IMPs (I didnt look up the vulnerability) then they would consider they made a serious error.

[Vampyr]

I suspect that if many of the players on this forum were in 5♠ in a teams match and failed and the other table made 5♠ so they lost 10 or 13 IMPs (I didnt look up the vulnerability) then they would consider they made a serious error.

 

So what? In order to approach the SEWOG requirement, a player would have to fail to make 10 tricks. And I am not entirely sure that is enough.

[Cascade]

So what? In order to approach the SEWOG requirement, a player would have to fail to make 10 tricks. And I am not entirely sure that is enough.

 

On what basis do you make that judgement.

 

If not making 11 tricks is a serious error then you have contributed to your own damage and L12C1b applies.

[lamford]

On what basis do you make that judgement.

 

If not making 11 tricks is a serious error then you have contributed to your own damage and L12C1b applies.

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

[Cascade]

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

 

I am really not following this:

 

(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has

contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the

adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending

side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the

consequence of its infraction only.

 

There is no "worse than" in the law.

 

A serious error is sufficient.

[lamford]

I am really not following this:

 

There is no "worse than" in the law.

 

A serious error is sufficient.

I agree that a serious error should be sufficient, and I would agree that, if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error. However the interpretation of serious error in the EBU is that it must be egregious, and even some of those are excused it seems; and the examples that are given of serious errors allow many exceptions. A stronger word than serious is needed to accord with common usage.

[bluejak]

Only in your view. It seems to me that serious is a word that needs examples and interpretations to decide what level applies. The fact that you personally disagree with the interpretations and examples of the European Bridge League and the English Bridge Union is hardly enough to mean that the lawmakers have made a mistake in their use of this word. Furthermore, as we are having to say more frequently these days, this is not the forum for that. What we want to know here is how to rule Law 12C1B cases, not how individuals think the wording should be changed.

[lamford]

What we want to know here is how to rule Law 12C1B cases, not how individuals think the wording should be changed.

I agree, so we need to decide what "serious" means in this context, and the WB expands on it. Cascade wrote: "if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error." Originally I concurred from a Law 12C1B point of view as well, but was persuaded by the other posters that "serious" is not interpreted in this way. I agree if I think a wording change is needed, then there is a forum section for that.

 

And where do I say that I disagree with the interpretations or examples of the EBL or EBU? In fact, the opposite - it was the examples in the WB that persuaded me that going off in 5S was not a "serious" error in this case.

[bluejak]

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

 

 

I agree that a serious error should be sufficient, and I would agree that, if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error. However the interpretation of serious error in the EBU is that it must be egregious, and even some of those are excused it seems; and the examples that are given of serious errors allow many exceptions. A stronger word than serious is needed to accord with common usage.

 

 

I agree, so we need to decide what "serious" means in this context, and the WB expands on it. Cascade wrote: "if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error." Originally I concurred from a Law 12C1B point of view as well, but was persuaded by the other posters that "serious" is not interpreted in this way. I agree if I think a wording change is needed, then there is a forum section for that.

 

And where do I say that I disagree with the interpretations or examples of the EBL or EBU? In fact, the opposite - it was the examples in the WB that persuaded me that going off in 5S was not a "serious" error in this case.

I was merely following what you said, and assuming that is what you meant. Most of us seem to think that when Law 12C1B refers to a serious error it means a serious error: you have said "worse than serious error" and "A stronger word than serious is needed ...". So you do not, apparently, agree that serious error means serious error, based solely on what you wrote.

[lamford]

I was merely following what you said, and assuming that is what you meant. Most of us seem to think that when Law 12C1B refers to a serious error it means a serious error: you have said "worse than serious error" and "A stronger word than serious is needed ...". So you do not, apparently, agree that serious error means serious error, based solely on what you wrote.

I agree that serious error means serious error but not in the way a bridge player unfamiliar with this Law would understand it.

[blackshoe]

So, what makes an error serious?

[bluejak]

Its quality. It is just a question of deciding the borderline, like LA.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, I suppose, though it seems awfully vague.

[Vampyr]

Fair enough, I suppose, though it seems awfully vague.

It does, yes. I think that Edgar Kaplan once said that a "serious error" in this context could also be called absurd, a totally obvious blunder, something a beginner wouldn't do (this last I am not sure is from Kaplan; I may have heard it somewhere else).

 

I think that Lamford is right. A strong player who took what he later realised was an anti-percentage line would feel that he had made a "serious error". This is not the same thing as "SE" from SEWOG.

 

Didn't the Law used to use "egregious"? It seems much more appropriate.

[bluejak]

Egregious is a word not much used in this country that was part of the North American interpretation of when to deny redress. Not only was it not part of the Law, but it was not felt to convey the flavour of the rules in the rest of the world. Since then this area has changed considerably both in North America and the rest of the world.