It Looks like a Duck

[lamford]

In my opinion "giving away the location of the spade ace" is a little irrelevant because West already doubled 6N. And if I were a TD I think I would rule this as a serious error (though of course NS should still get -500).

ahydra

Indeed. West would never double 6NT with Qxxx KQxx Axxx K, would he? I think even Colonel Whiteflag, of Danny Kleinmann fame, might manage a red card with that collection.

[gordontd]

Come, come. Do you think West thought of this at trick two, a few milliseconds after trick one was won with the ace of hearts. He is now trying to wipe the egg of his face by explaining away the duck to team-mates who will be laying in to him shortly.

I think that if they had alerted as required he would be much less likely to have ducked the trick, yes. So it's not "unrelated to the infraction".

[gordontd]

It would seem that all errors after an infraction are in some way related to it, other than mechanical errors such as pulling the wrong card.

Not all but most, certainly. That's why the search for examples has mainly focussed on revokes and failures to cover honours (and you've already pointed out that not all instances of those are errors). One might also include playing unnecessarily high honours - eg K from KJ when the Q in dummy has not been played. And yes Paul, before you go and create another hypothetical example when it's right to play the K rather than the J, I know they exist. Examples of errors are just that - it doesn't mean that no such instance of the play can ever be right.

[Poky]

West's duck is reasonable and clearly not SEWoG.

If you make an action which could turn a sure +500 into a possible -1330 (just because you wish to achieve +800 or better, in a duboius spot), that action is gambling for sure.

 

But this is not a matter of bridge, it is a matter of lexic and definition: "gamble - take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome".

[Free]

Everyone, even granny, can smell something is wrong (or North is gambling) from the moment opps bid 6NT with a maximum of 24HCP combined. When North appears to have a balanced 11 count, West should've realised something was wrong with the 2NT opening in an instant. Without asking any questions or looking at the CC, the duck is not reasonable at all imo.

[iviehoff]

If you make an action which could turn a sure +500 into a possible -1330 (just because you wish to achieve +800 or better, in a duboius spot), that action is gambling for sure.

 

But this is not a matter of bridge, it is a matter of lexic and definition: "gamble - take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome".

Throwing away a 99% chance of +800 for the 1% risk that it might be -1330? I'd be hard pressed to agree that was value-for-money insurance.

[lamford]

I think that if they had alerted as required he would be much less likely to have ducked the trick, yes. So it's not "unrelated to the infraction".

In the thread "Silly Slip" where someone accidentally opened 2NT after a strong pass was not alerted, and then went for a number, it it clear that he would be much less likely to have opened 2NT if Pass had been alerted. He would not have attempted to open 1NT if he had half a brain (or more than half even), after his RHO began with a strong Pass. So you could argue this was not unrelated to the infraction, but the majority view there was that was "clearly a SeWoG" - bluejak.

 

In this example, the WB contradicts itself in that it indicates that ducking the setting trick against a slam is a "blatantly ridiculous call or play" (assuming my understanding of "such as" is correct). Later it indicates that "Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line" is not a serious error. This is how I would interpret the duck in this case. And I would interpret the 2NT in the other case as not "unrelated to the infraction".

[nigel_k]

West knows that the opponents have had a misunderstanding. But it is quite reasonable to try to extract the maximum penalty for that error. A lot more than 800 is possible and probably they were playing a form of the game where you have to defend without seeing all four hands. Failure to allow for declarer having opened 2NT with ten clubs is not a SEWOG.

 

For me, the main issue is that the cards West can see make it abundantly clear that South doesn't have any kind of unalertable 2NT opening. So West is arguably in the same position he would have been if there was an alert. In that case there is no damage from the failure to alert. The damage resulted from a freak lie of the cards, N/S having a 'lucky' accident in reaching 6NT, and West's choice of plays.

[Jaom]

If that were IMPS - Director rulling seems OK for me.

If we are talking about matchpoints - -500 for both sides looks a way better ( i mean 800 is better than 500, expecially when EW might win 4♠ and W might know this)

[bluejak]

The infractions were the failure to alert and the failure to advise West before the opening lead of the failure to alert. I interpret "unrelated to the infraction" to mean that it is a separate error and not directly as a result of the infraction. But you could argue that West would be more likely to get it right if he had correct information, and therefore it is not unrelated to the infraction. It would seem that all errors after an infraction are in some way related to it, other than mechanical errors such as pulling the wrong card.

We have had other errors which are not related. For example, suppose declarer is in 4♥ because he has used UI when he should be in 3♥. There is a misdefence which is just silly, and has nothing to do with the level of contract. Now whether it is a serious error or not is a matter of judgement which needs the hand, but it is certainly unrelated to the infraction.

 

:ph34r:

 

Come, come. Do you think West thought of this at trick two, a few milliseconds after trick one was won with the ace of hearts. He is now trying to wipe the egg of his face by explaining away the duck to team-mates who will be laying in to him shortly.

Of course it was a mistake, no doubt partly caused by declarer playing to the first two tricks at the speed of light. But being totally unsympathetic to a member of the non-offending side merely because he was induced to make a mistake does not seem to me to be following the flavour of Law 12C1B at all.

[lamford]

We have had other errors which are not related. For example, suppose declarer is in 4♥ because he has used UI when he should be in 3♥. There is a misdefence which is just silly, and has nothing to do with the level of contract. Now whether it is a serious error or not is a matter of judgement which needs the hand, but it is certainly unrelated to the infraction.

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Of course it was a mistake, no doubt partly caused by declarer playing to the first two tricks at the speed of light. But being totally unsympathetic to a member of the non-offending side merely because he was induced to make a mistake does not seem to me to be following the flavour of Law 12C1B at all.

In your first example, if the serious error causes an extra overtrick or an undertrick fewer, then it could be unrelated to the infraction, but one could argue that the defender might have defended differently against 3H. It also does not seem serious either. Of course if it is "pulling the wrong card" that can happen against any contract.

 

I did not say that I was unsympathetic to the non-offender. In fact I would say that the generalisation in the WB that ducking the setting trick against a slam is a serious error is wrong, and that each case should be judged on its merits; also the generalisation that failing to cover an honour when it is surrounded is a serious error is wrong. In this case, if I were able to do so lawfully, I would ignore the WB example and rule that it was not a SeWoG. Similarly with the accidental 2NT bid, I would rule it was related to the infraction, so that was not a SeWoG either. The examples in the WB were not that well chosen, were they?

[bluejak]

They were well chosen for the vast majority: it is only the pedantic few who need an extra few paragraphs of explanation.

 

For example, ducking the setting trick is a generalisation, and the vast majority understands what it means: it does not mean in every single situation without using commonsense or logic whatever that we follow that advice. It is merely to give a general flavour, and most people appreciate that.

 

Are you really suggesting that when the White book refers to ducking a setting trick we need to put in all the bits, like if declarer tries to get an advantage by tempo perhaps it does not apply, and if he could be way off the hand expected it might not apply, and so forth? If so you will make the White book completely unreadable and pointless.

 

Please try and read the White book with commonsense, especially where non-detailed examples are given. To assume they will always apply whatever the situation is not helpful: they are there to give a flavour, not to tell people not to apply judgement or commonsense.

[lamford]

They were well chosen for the vast majority: it is only the pedantic few who need an extra few paragraphs of explanation.

 

For example, ducking the setting trick is a generalisation, and the vast majority understands what it means: it does not mean in every single situation without using commonsense or logic whatever that we follow that advice. It is merely to give a general flavour, and most people appreciate that.

 

Are you really suggesting that when the White book refers to ducking a setting trick we need to put in all the bits, like if declarer tries to get an advantage by tempo perhaps it does not apply, and if he could be way off the hand expected it might not apply, and so forth? If so you will make the White book completely unreadable and pointless.

 

Please try and read the White book with commonsense, especially where non-detailed examples are given. To assume they will always apply whatever the situation is not helpful: they are there to give a flavour, not to tell people not to apply judgement or commonsense.

Some of the time posters on here argue that Laws should be followed to the letter. And even then they disagree on what words such as "use", "serious", or "likely" mean.If there is a clear and unequivocal statement in the Laws (or in books that supplement the Laws) then the vast majority will assume they are not generalisations. And, on this subject, you stated that opening 2NT on a 12 count after a Strong Pass which was not alerted was "clearly a SeWoG". To my mind that is clearly not "unrelated to the infraction". Is this another example of a generalisation that does not always apply? Vague law and regulation is just bad law and regulation.

[bluejak]

You are confusing Laws and examples. Examples are merely to give you a flavour and help with interpretation.

[lamford]

You are confusing Laws and examples. Examples are merely to give you a flavour and help with interpretation.

Examples can be part of the Laws. For example:

 

B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty

The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):

1. arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time.

2. unduly slow play by a contestant.

3. discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table.

4. unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant.

5. touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (see Law 7).

6. placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board.

7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant.

8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director .

 

Now, I agree that common sense should apply, and the PP should not be automatic. For example, briefly placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket would not, I hope, be punished if the error was discovered before the board is passed on. Arrival after the specified starting time would not normally be punished if the event was running late, etc.

 

But the Law still specifies that 1-8 are offences subject to procedural penalty, and the fact that they are examples does not change that. It clarifies that there may be other ones - I would hope that foul or abusive language to a TD, although not listed, would be.

 

Where I agree is that the TD has the power to interpret the Laws (and examples) and decide which ones should not apply in a particular situation - using common sense. You and I agree that the duck of the spade in this example should not be a SeWoG, regardless of the speed of declarer's play - although some believe it is, and the WB states it is, by way of example. I am all in favour of allowing the TD to interpret the Laws under 81C2, with the fallback of an AC if the interpretation is disputed. When the law is an ass, it should not be followed.

[bluejak]

I think your example of Law 90 shows exactly why we do not adopt an attitude of doing what is in the examples without judgement.