Another SEoWG case

[nige1]

I agree with mycroft that the removal of the SEWoG clause would benefit experts, since experts would be better able to judge when they have a chance at a double shot.

We agree to differ as to whether the SEWOG law benefits experts. My main objections to it is that it's complex, generally misunderstood, and completely unnecessary. Let's look at serious errors and double-shots, separately:

 

A typical real-life case of Serious error: Opponent's misinformation leaves you defending a doubled part-score. During the play, you gradually realize that you could have bid and made a vulnerable grand-slam in a suit "shown" by opponents. Disconcerted, you lose the place and make what the director judges to be a "serious error", which results in +300 rather than +800. IMO, you don't deserve to be deprived of full redress.

The Serious error rule might seem to be OK if directors ruled strictly according to law-makers' intentions. According to guide-lines, in order to legally qualify as a "serious error", an error must be egregious (e.g. revoking, failing to win the setting trick). Unfortunately, given identical facts (including player-class), different directors reach radically different conclusions, some judging minor mistakes to be "serious errors". The serious error rule adds no discernible value.

 

 

In practical bridge, the Double-shot is a chimera. Presumably, a player would be guilty of a double-shot if

- He suspects that an opponent might be guilty of an infraction.

- He takes some wild action that will score well if it succeeds.

- If his wild action fails, then he hopes that the director will agree with his initial assessment and still award him a good score.

- The gambler can't be certain that opponents are guilty of an infraction or that the director will rule that way, so few sane players would ever risk a "double-shot", even if the law allowed it. But if the law did allow it, then so what? What's wrong with a "double-shot"? They only thing wrong with it is the existence of the arbitrary and pointless SEWOG rule.

 

[VixTD]

A typical real-life case of Serious error: Opponent's misinformation leaves you defending a doubled part-score. During the play, you gradually realize that you could have bid and made a vulnerable grand-slam in a suit "shown" by opponents. Disconcerted, you lose the place and make what the director judges to be a "serious error", which results in +300 rather than +800. IMO, you don't deserve to be deprived of full redress.

The Serious error rule might seem to be OK if directors ruled strictly according to law-makers' intentions. According to guide-lines, in order to legally qualify as a "serious error", an error must be egregious (e.g. revoking, failing to win the setting trick). Unfortunately, given identical facts (including player-class), different directors reach radically different conclusions, some judging minor mistakes to be "serious errors". The serious error rule adds no discernible value.

Nigel, I can only speak for England, where I direct, but I believe there is an established principle here that a player who is put in a difficult position by an opponent's infraction will be treated sympathetically, and the director will be reluctant to class errors by such players as "wild or gambling". I'm struggling to find a written code*, but I remember, probably from a TD training event, being told that a player will not be penalised for making an error defending a contract they wouldn't have been defending but for the infraction. It would also be quite easy to argue that the error was "not unrelated to the infraction".

 

[*Edit: I've found it: WB8.12.5.3]

 

In practical bridge, the Double-shot is a chimera. Presumably, a player would be guilty of a double-shot if

- He suspects that an opponents might be guilty of an infraction.

- He takes some wild action that will score well if it succeeds.

- If his wild action fails, then he hopes that the director will agree with his initial assessment and still award him a good score.

- The gambler can't be certain that opponents are guilty of an infraction or that the director will rule that way, so few sane players would ever attempt a "double-shot", even if the law allowed it. But if the law did allow it, then so what? What's wrong with a "double-shot"? They only thing wrong with it is the existence of the arbitrary and pointless SEWOG rule.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with a "double-shot" per se. The law only steps in where a player takes ridiculous, unwarranted action to try to get a cost-free bonus on top of what they already have protected under law. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

You consider the application of "SEWoG law" and the consequent score adjustments to be beyond the capabilities of the average director, and you may be right. But so is the application of the laws dealing with insufficient bids and major penalty cards. At least with SEWoG rulings the TD can consult their local panel TD, who will probably consult further, and they'll end up with a ruling that is not just the floundering efforts of a single, inexperienced TD. I would never make such a ruling without canvassing opinions of other TDs, and asking someone to check my calculations. If the average TD is reluctant to do this, that's what needs to be fixed, rather than the laws.

[mycroft]

You know, I don't have an issue with the doubleshot either - I watch (Canadian) Football, after all, and Cricket, and am well acquainted with "the ref called an infraction, I bet it's their problem, I'm guaranteed down repeated and yards, let's try for all the marbles because it can't cost" - with a caveat that I might be wrong about who went offside... I don't have a problem with that rule, and the game seems good with it.

 

I watch Rugby and Hockey, as well, and am quite comfortable with the advantage rule/delayed penalty: that one is even more blatant about "I know I'm in a no-lose situation" as the play would be whistled dead were it my team's fault. Equally, the game works with it.

 

But bridge is uncomfortable with this method of play, and always has been; and the powers (both play and regulatory) like it that way. So we regulate in a way that the doubleshot does have a downside.

 

People are trying to tell me that gamblers, especially experts, can't be sure that the issue will cause a rollback. That may in fact be true; but most of the time it's bleedingly obvious, and given the number of times I've heard (from other tables, as a player, or after the game as a TD) "I could call the TD and get that bid taken away, but I won't"; at least *those* experts are pretty certain they're right at the time.

 

I agree with VixTD that this is a judgement ruling on top of a judgement ruling, and judgement rulings are to be consulted. Just because *I* can't see any sense to whatever silly thing happened...The fact that that does not happen is an education problem.

 

I also agree with Nigel and the OP that "Wild or Gambling" is often applied to situations that boil down to "well, I wouldn't do it", and that is also an education problem. I do see that the EBU via the White Book examples are trying to do that education and bring the boundary back up to the "you never would have tried that if you didn't have a good score in your pocket already" level.

[szgyula]

Nigel, I can only speak for England, where I direct, but I believe there is an established principle here that a player who is put in a difficult position by an opponent's infraction will be treated sympathetically, and the director will be reluctant to class errors by such players as "wild or gambling". I'm struggling to find a written code*, but I remember, probably from a TD training event, being told that a player will not be penalised for making an error defending a contract they wouldn't have been defending but for the infraction. It would also be quite easy to argue that the error was "not unrelated to the infraction".

 

[*Edit: I've found it: WB8.12.5.3]

 

Actually, it is very hard. The Laws and Ethics guys in Hungary said that the ♥ lead in the post was not a serious error but it was wild. End of story. They asked 5 guys, some of them alreadz played the board. All of them would have lead ♠. Thus, ♠ is right, ♥ is wrong. I.e. ♥ is wild as "I would never have done it". Case closed.

[RMB1]

Thus, ♠ is right, ♥ is wrong. I.e. ♥ is wild as "I would never have done it".

 

I don't think that is what "wild" means. It is not true that a wrong action is a wild action.

 

I think "wild" implies something about the motivation for the choice of action.

[gwnn]

Maybe this is a spot in which a little bit of pedantry and attention to word order and conjunctions doesn't hurt.

 

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling means "(serious error) and (wild or gambling)".

 

Serious Error or Wild Gambling (as OP possibly thought the acronym was) means (serious error) or (wild gambling).

 

The two are not synonymous unless you consider all gambling/wild gambling actions to be a subset of serious errors.

 

And the lawmakers should be ashamed for not using more transparent language.

[helene_t]

Maybe this is a spot in which a little bit of pedantry and attention to word order and conjunctions doesn't hurt.

 

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling means "(serious error) and (wild or gambling)".

 

Serious Error or Wild Gambling (as OP possibly thought the acronym was) means (serious error) or (wild gambling).

 

The two are not synonymous unless you consider all gambling/wild gambling actions to be a subset of serious errors.

 

And the lawmakers should be ashamed for not using more transparent language.

"A, B or C" generally means "A or B or C".

 

So shouldn't "Serious Error, Wild or Gambling" mean "(serious error) or (wild or gambling)" ?

[wank]

i've played in hungary before several times. last time i was there i was playing in a national tournament (no special regulations advertised, not a beginners' or otherwise restricted event, etc) and 'psyched' (just a light 1M opener). my rho started to complain telling me how it was cheating. i called the director and asked him to explain that psyching was legal and this wasn't even a psyche. the director informed me that i was wrong. either hungary has a blanket ban on psyches (contrary to the laws of bridge obviously) or the standard of directing isn't ideal. you can guess which option my money's on.

[gwnn]

"A, B or C" generally means "A or B or C".

 

So shouldn't "Serious Error, Wild or Gambling" mean "(serious error) or (wild or gambling)" ?

I can't find the original text now and all I can find is a bunch of sources that write that it is indeed (serious error) or (wild or gambling), so you are right about what the laws say, and I concede the main point.

 

In my defence, if it is indeed "Serious Error, Wild or Gambling" (without any noun coming after) that still sounds like "I want to buy cheap potatoes, large or small" rather than "I want to buy potatoes that are either cheap, large, or small". So to me SEWoG still sounds like (SE)&(W/G), but I guess that's not the way the original text has it. I think a better acronym might be needed, but maybe I'm the only one who is misled by it?

[VixTD]

I can't find the original text now and all I can find is a bunch of sources that write that it is indeed (serious error) or (wild or gambling), so you are right about what the laws say, and I concede the main point.

[Law 12C1(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.

[gwnn]

Thanks, I suck at google. Yes, it is 100% clear. I think the acronym is silly, but that's my problem.

[Trinidad]

Thanks, I suck at google. Yes, it is 100% clear. I think the acronym is silly, but that's my problem.

We can change the acronym to SEoWoG, or even SENRoWoG.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

We can change the acronym to SEoWoG, or even SENRoWoG.

 

Rik

Yes, thank you. Also if you could add some second letters it would be better too. No, IDK, actually now that I read the law, it would simply be a better choice to have SEoWGA for example, or even SEoWG or SE/WG (come to think of it, aren't gambling and wild kind of synonymous?). Anyway, sorry for the bandwidth wasted, I'll see my way out.

[nullve]

Maybe this is a spot in which a little bit of pedantry and attention to word order and conjunctions doesn't hurt.

 

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling means "(serious error) and (wild or gambling)".

 

"A, B or C" generally means "A or B or C".

 

So shouldn't "Serious Error, Wild or Gambling" mean "(serious error) or (wild or gambling)" ?

While it's true that

 

'(4333), (4432) or (5332)',

 

means the same as

 

'(4333) or (4432) or (5332)',

 

e.g. when listing all traditional balanced hand patterns, the expression

 

'10-15, 6+ C or 5C4M',

 

which is commonly used to describe a Precision 2C opening, is supposed to mean the same as

 

'10-15 and either 6+ C or 5C4M',

 

i.e.

 

'10-15 and (6+ C or 5CM)'.

 

As another example, compare

 

'blue, red or green',

 

with

 

'apples, red or green'.

[gordontd]

While it's true that

 

'(4333), (4432) or (5332)',

 

means the same as

 

'(4333) or (4432) or (5332)',

 

e.g. when listing all traditional balanced hand patterns, the expression

 

'10-15, 6+ C or 5C4M',

 

which is commonly used to describe a Precision 2C opening, is supposed to mean the same as

 

'10-15 and either 6+ C or 5C4M',

 

i.e.

 

'10-15 and (6+ C or 5CM)'.

 

As another example, compare

 

'blue, red or green',

 

with

 

'apples, red or green'.

All these interesting arguments would go away if we simply referred to the actual words used in the law itself.

[barmar]

(come to think of it, aren't gambling and wild kind of synonymous?).

Not really.

 

If you just randomly bid 7NT, that's wild. You don't really think there's any chance of making it, so it's not even a gamble. Before the SEoWG law, players might have done this because there's no downside -- the TD is going to adjust the result anyway.

[gwnn]

It is a gamble because you are betting on the TD adjusting when it's wrong.

[szgyula]

Just to further educate myself:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj2hq9dj752cakqjt&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2dp2np3nppdpp4hdppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Explanations, as received by South (Screens in place):

 

2D: 9-13 HCP 5+♦, if ♦ is exactly 5, there is a 4+ second suit (any). 2NT and 3NT are not alerted.

 

There is a clear MI case. That is not the question. The question is the X of the 4♥. The TD ruled WoG of the SEWoG, i.e. not even serious error but wild or gambling. MP scoring, very good players. What do you think? Where is the line between "normal play", "logical alternative", "careless", "serious error", "wild, "gambling", etc.

[gwnn]

What was the explanation given and what was the real agreement?

[lamford]

Any discussion of whether an action is SEWoG which extends to more than one page means that the action is probably not SEWoG. It should be reserved for ludicrous plays like revokes, failing to win the setting trick against a game or slam, or bids that have no prospects whatsoever of being right. Pretty much as we are told by the EBU White Book.

[Trinidad]

Where is the line between "normal play", "logical alternative", "careless", "serious error", "wild, "gambling", etc.

Just some qualifications from me:

• 
   
  
• "Normal play":
  the plays, we wish we would make consistently.
  
• "logical alternative":
  a play that we would seriously consider, even if it objectively may not be best.
  
• "careless":
  the type of errors that we make every session and that we aim to get rid off (if we want to be better players). They may lead to (bad) partners shaking their heads (or act worse).
  
• "serious error":
  the type of errors that we make very rarely. They lead you to shake your head yourself (or act worse): "What (add expletive if needed) was I doing/thinking?"
  
• "wild or gambling":
  an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky.
  

 

We make a serious error less than once a year.

How often we do something wild or gambling depends on our character.

 

Rik

[barmar]

So where do you classify not taking the setting trick? I humbly admit that I do that far more than once a year.

 

Some of these things have to be taken in context, I suppose. At matchpoints you sometimes have to be greedy, and you may occasionally go to bed with the setting card because you were trying for a second undertrick.

[aguahombre]

Just some qualifications from me:

• 
   
  
• "Normal play":
  the plays, we wish we would make consistently.
  
• "logical alternative":
  a play that we would seriously consider, even if it objectively may not be best.
  
• "careless":
  the type of errors that we make every session and that we aim to get rid off (if we want to be better players). They may lead to (bad) partners shaking their heads (or act worse).
  
• "serious error":
  the type of errors that we make very rarely. They lead you to shake your head yourself (or act worse): "What (add expletive if needed) was I doing/thinking?"
  
• "wild or gambling":
  an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky.
  

 

We make a serious error less than once a year.

How often we do something wild or gambling depends on our character.

 

Rik

Good job.

 

I would not have been as tactful about:

 

"wild or gambling":

an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky. and would add or expect the TD to rule in my favor if it doesn't work.

[szgyula]

So what is that double in the example? TD classified is as WoG. I think his definition is that "anything that is not perfect bridge is wild or gamling". Unfortunately, he has many students and they also think the same. Considering the number of TDs in the country (12), in Hungary, anything that is not normal play is WoG. "Normal play" is what the TD would have done, knowing all 52 cards...

[szgyula]

What was the explanation given and what was the real agreement?

2♦ was explained correctly (see above) for both opponents. There was no alert for the 2N and the 3N on the side of South. Thus, 2N is invit to 3N, 3N accepts it with maximum.

 

On the other side of the screen, the correct explanation was given: 2NT forces partner to bid 3 ♣ (either stop in ♣ or strong invit with 55 in majors or GF with 54/45 in majors).

 

3N was not part of the system.

 

2N was stretching it a bit as it was only 54 in majors and 13HCP, i.e. close to GF but not quite.