Another SEoWG case

[campboy]

So what is that double in the example?

Ridiculous. I see no reason to think 4♥ is going off. They may well have stumbled into their fit; if they haven't partner will double them anyway.

[szgyula]

Ridiculous. I see no reason to think 4♥ is going off. They may well have stumbled into their fit; if they haven't partner will double them anyway.

Sure. Is it WoG?

[campboy]

Sure. Is it WoG?

I think so. (If you were going to ask me which, probably both!)

[Trinidad]

So what is that double in the example?

 

It probably is an E, but one that people make 100 times a year and certainly not of the 'S' variety. (Neither is it WoG.)

 

TD classified is as WoG.

Now, that is a typical example of an SE...

 

;)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

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.

I think you answered the question already.

 

Of course, it depends on the situation, but a rough sketch:

At MPs, I might not even be an error, let alone an SE. (If you think that you can make 3♥, setting their vulnerable 3♠ 1 trick isn't going to give you a good score.)

 

At IMPs, I can see a lot of run of the mill contracts where not cashing the setting trick could be considered an SE for some players (but certainly not for all). But also in that case, you need to check three times: What was the information that the player had when he made the alleged SE. If you -in that player's shoes- have any kind of sympathy or understanding for his action, then it is not an SE. (An example of an error TDs can make in such a case is that they see (with all hands in view and with the correct informantion) that the player can simoply cash the trick, whereas the player (with the limited, or even wrong information that he had at the time) might be afraid that it gets ruffed or that declarer cannot possibly get rid of his losers and he will always get that trick anyway.)

 

Things also change when it is not a run of the mill contract, e.g. when the contract is (re)doubled. If the defender has every reason to expect that the contract will go two (or more) down when he postpones cashing the setting trick and only one down when he cashes it, it cannot be clasified as an error if you don't cash that trick. (Think of a situation where they sacrificed (vul) against your (non vul) making game. If your team mates don't sacrifice, you will lose 220 (200-420) or 6 IMPs if you cash the setting trick. If you get it 2 down, you win 80 (500-420) or 2 IMPs and if you get it 3 down, it will be a gain of 380 (800-420) or 9 IMPs. So cashing the setting trick might just like that cost you 8 or 15 IMPs.

 

So, even not cashing the setting trick is often not an SE.

 

Rik