Serious error

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9752ha65432dc&n=s43hkdj6432ck6432]133|200[/hv]

 

Pips approximate, this deal turned up in an event I played in over the weekend, at our table, partner went quietly one off in 4♠. Hybrid pairs/teams scoring.

 

At the other table, events were more interesting:

 

E opened 1♦, S bid 2♦ michaels, W bid 2♥ which E alerted, and on enquiry said "diamond raise". He should have said "I'm sure it's not natural but not 100% sure what it is". His partner thought it WAS natural, wrongly.

 

Anyway, the auction got high fast, EW bid 5♦ and S bid 5♠ which was doubled.

 

as the play went, a heart was played to dummy's K, declarer ruffed back to hand and cashed the A♥ which got ruffed, now he goes -3.

 

Cashing the A♥ cannot gain under any possible circumstance, and potentially loses when hearts are 4-2 as well as 5-1.

 

The directors ruled that there was a 50% chance that NS would double 5♦ with the correct explanation (-1 because they'd all lead K♠ rather than an unfortunate A♥) 25% table result 5♠x-3, 25% 5♠x-2.

 

I felt that cashing the A♥ was so misere that the opps didn't deserve any relief from it if playing 5♠.

 

Do I have too low a tolerance for idiocy ?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj9752ha65432dc&n=s43hkdj6432ck6432]133|200[/hv]

 

Pips approximate, this deal turned up in an event I played in over the weekend, at our table, partner went quietly one off in 4♠. Hybrid pairs/teams scoring.

 

At the other table, events were more interesting:

 

E opened 1♦, S bid 2♦ michaels, W bid 2♥ which E alerted, and on enquiry said "diamond raise". He should have said "I'm sure it's not natural but not 100% sure what it is". His partner thought it WAS natural, wrongly.

 

Anyway, the auction got high fast, EW bid 5♦ and S bid 5♠ which was doubled.

 

as the play went, a heart was played to dummy's K, declarer ruffed back to hand and cashed the A♥ which got ruffed, now he goes -3.

 

Cashing the A♥ cannot gain under any possible circumstance, and potentially loses when hearts are 4-2 as well as 5-1.

 

The directors ruled that there was a 50% chance that NS would double 5♦ with the correct explanation (-1 because they'd all lead K♠ rather than an unfortunate A♥) 25% table result 5♠x-3, 25% 5♠x-2.

 

I felt that cashing the A♥ was so misere that the opps didn't deserve any relief from it if playing 5♠.

 

Do I have too low a tolerance for idiocy ?

 

Is there any irregularity here? I cannot see any misinformation.

[sanst]

Whether there was an infraction or not, playing the ace is not beyond careless, thus not a SEWoG. There was an infraction, though, the explanation wasn't right. But I don't see how that influenced either the auction or the line of play, so no rectification.

[Trinidad]

SE is for really, REALLY, REALLY gross errors.

 

So, yes, you are too intolerant.

 

Analyses such as "but this play can't possibly gain" do not describe an SE. They describe laziness, carelessness. An analysis of "How the $&@%§$ could he be so &$@^~* stupid to do that?" does describe an SE. SEs are revokes, trumping partner's trick, playing the Q from AQ when your opponent has played the K, etc.: Things that you do right if you simply pay attention to the cards that are played. As soon as an error requires thinking or analysis to prevent it, it is not an SE.

 

(With sincere apologies to anybody who has ever committed a true SE. ;) )

 

Rik

[weejonnie]

And when the new rules are implemented it will be an "extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", just to make it more obvious. (Note that cashing the Ace of Hearts is related to the infraction, since if declarer knew that the 2 Heart bid was not necessarily showing diamond support then he might have led a low heart instead of the Ace, guessing that the bid was natural) I would agree that this is not a serious error according to EBU guidelines (other RAs may have different guidelines).

 

8.12.5.3 ‘Serious Error’

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

 

1) 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).

2) 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.

3) 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.

 

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

 

1) Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

2) Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.

3) Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

4) Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

[pran]

Whether there was an infraction or not, playing the ace is not beyond careless, thus not a SEWoG. There was an infraction, though, the explanation wasn't right. But I don't see how that influenced either the auction or the line of play, so no rectification.

In what way was the explanation incorrect?

 

The alert and explanation "diamond raise" sounds correct to me unless by agreement the 2♥ bid conveys even more information. So what is the correct agreement on this 2♥ bid? (Doubt is never part of any agreement!)

[Cyberyeti]

In what way was the explanation incorrect?

 

The alert and explanation "diamond raise" sounds correct to me unless by agreement the 2♥ bid conveys even more information. So what is the correct agreement on this 2♥ bid? (Doubt is never part of any agreement!)

 

The explanation should have been, "Not natural but not sure what it is" rather than diamond raise.

 

I view that in a national final, cashing the A♥ IS totally idiotic although not necessarily down the club (you've already won your county's teams championship to qualify for this event, 29 teams for the whole of England).

[pran]

The explanation should have been, "Not natural but not sure what it is" rather than diamond raise.

 

I view that in a national final, cashing the A♥ IS totally idiotic although not necessarily down the club (you've already won your county's teams championship to qualify for this event, 29 teams for the whole of England).

Exactly what was the partnership agreement (or understanding)? The Director must certainly have established this before making any ruling?

 

Was the caller's hand consistent with the explanation ("diamond raise")?

 

"Not sure what it is" is an illegal statement, it can only serve the purpose of deliberately passing extraneous information ("I am unsure") to the caller.

[Cyberyeti]

Exactly what was the partnership agreement (or understanding)? The Director must certainly have established this before making any ruling?

 

Was the caller's hand consistent with the explanation ("diamond raise")?

 

"Not sure what it is" is an illegal statement, it can only serve the purpose of deliberately passing extraneous information ("I am unsure") to the caller.

 

He had 5♥/3♦ nothing documented on agreement

 

In the UK we are told to alert if we're not sure what a call is but it may be conventional and explain that "we don't know what it is but we don't think it's natural".

[pran]

He had 5♥/3♦ nothing documented on agreement

 

In the UK we are told to alert if we're not sure what a call is but it may be conventional and explain that "we don't know what it is but we don't think it's natural".

 

Oh dear, what a shocking regulation: "Be aware partner, I have forgotten our agreement !!!" - and opponents gain nothing of any value from this "explanation"?

[WellSpyder]

Oh dear, what a shocking regulation: "Be aware partner, I have forgotten our agreement !!!" - and opponents gain nothing of any value from this "explanation"?

On the contrary. Partner gains nothing from this since it is, of course, UI that you don't know what the agreement is. And opponents gain because they aren't deceived into thinking that the bid is natural.

[pran]

On the contrary. Partner gains nothing from this since it is, of course, UI that you don't know what the agreement is. And opponents gain because they aren't deceived into thinking that the bid is natural.

Of course it is UI, but how can the Director establish whether the bidder has used this UI?

 

The Director must find that the caller changed his attitude during the auction for instance from aggressive to more careful bidding at the time he received such UI. And judgements like that are IMHO next to impossible for the Director.

 

Opponents loose because they are no longer protected by the Laws on misinformation, it is of little help for them to know that there may be some misunderstanding unless the explanation is ruled misinformation.

 

The basic attitude for the Director should be to establish: Would the caller's and his partner's explanations be identical without any communication between them?

(That is why we in certain events play with screens.)

 

If the answer is NO - then we have misinformation.

 

Hopefully (?) a player would never explain his own call as "my partner doesn't know for sure" and consequently an explanation like "I am not sure" is technically always misinformation. ("We have no agreement" might be a better eplanation.)

[WellSpyder]

Of course it is UI, but how can the Director establish whether the bidder has used this UI?

The same way that he does for any other UI, of course.

 

Opponents loose because they are no longer protected by the Laws on misinformation, it is of little help for them to know that there may be some misunderstanding unless the explanation is ruled misinformation.

They can always get the TD involved at the stage when the explanation is given. If the person making the badly-explained bid thinks that the bid has a specific meaning as a result of explicit or implicit agreement then they can give this explanation while their partner is not at the table.

[Trinidad]

He had 5♥/3♦ nothing documented on agreement

 

In the UK we are told to alert if we're not sure what a call is but it may be conventional and explain that "we don't know what it is but we don't think it's natural".

I agree with Pran:

This gives UI and it doesn't solve a problem. It is still MI and the opponents are entitled to redress if they are damaged.

 

After all, the correct information is either of:

"We do not have an agreement."

"We do have an agreement and it is... "

 

I would prefer an alert (if it could be alertable) and -when asked- simply followed by: "I don't know." The last part also is UI, but it contains all the relevant information and nothing more.

 

Rik

[sanst]

I view that in a national final, cashing the A♥ IS totally idiotic although not necessarily down the club (you've already won your county's teams championship to qualify for this event, 29 teams for the whole of England).

A national final, but no screens?

[Cyberyeti]

A national final, but no screens?

 

Very few events are played with screens in the UK, I've never played with screens, although have played the odd event where I might have done if doing better.

[wank]

A national final, but no screens?

 

only national trials (including the national league which doubles as a trials) is played with screens in england.

 

the last 4 of the spring 4s too?

 

yes i agree serious bridge events should have screens. where i live the monday bridge club top division is played with screens.

[barmar]

I would prefer an alert (if it could be alertable) and -when asked- simply followed by: "I don't know." The last part also is UI, but it contains all the relevant information and nothing more.

 

Rik

What difference does it make to the UI whether he says "I've forgotten" or "I don't know"? Either way, partner has UI that he doesn't know what the meaning is.

[barmar]

Of course it is UI, but how can the Director establish whether the bidder has used this UI?

That's not a problem that the Laws try to solve. The Laws regarding disclosure generally assume that the players are honorable and honest. Disclosing as much information as feasible to the opponents takes priority over not giving UI to partner -- partner is expected to obey the laws that say not to take advantage of UI. Screens solve the UI problem in more "serious" events.

Hopefully (?) a player would never explain his own call as "my partner doesn't know for sure" and consequently an explanation like "I am not sure" is technically always misinformation. ("We have no agreement" might be a better eplanation.)

It would just be a different form of MI. Forgetting an agreement doesn't mean the agreement doesn't exist.

 

Consider the opposite situation, where you misbid and partner alerts and explains correctly. Your misbid means you forgot the agreement, but does that make his explanation MI? No, it makes your bid a deviation from the agreement. Why is it any different when the explainer is the one who forgot?

[blackshoe]

He had 5♥/3♦ nothing documented on agreement

 

In the UK we are told to alert if we're not sure what a call is but it may be conventional and explain that "we don't know what it is but we don't think it's natural".

 

I agree with Pran:

This gives UI and it doesn't solve a problem. It is still MI and the opponents are entitled to redress if they are damaged.

 

After all, the correct information is either of:

"We do not have an agreement."

"We do have an agreement and it is... "

 

I would prefer an alert (if it could be alertable) and -when asked- simply followed by: "I don't know." The last part also is UI, but it contains all the relevant information and nothing more.

 

Rik

It seems to me you are bound to provide your opponents MI no matter what you do, even if you do nothing. Some scenarios:

 

1. You do/say nothing, and it turns out you have an alertable agreement. MI. The lack of alert conveys (not "is") UI.

2. You alert, and they don't ask. It turns out you don't have an alertable agreement. MI. The alert conveys UI.

3. You alert, and they don't ask. It turns out you have an alertable agreement. No MI. The alert conveys UI.

4. You alert, and they ask. You say "I don't know". MI. Both the alert and the statement convey (probably the same) UI.

5. You alert, and they ask. You say "I don't know, look at our card". The information is on the card. No MI. UI.

6. You alert, and they ask. You say "I don't know, look at our card". The information is not on the card. Possible MI. UI. Whether it's MI depends on whether there's no information on the card because you forgot to put it there, or because you have no agreement, or because your agreement is that it's natural and there's no reason to put it on the card.

 

If, as happened once to me, they say (in the event she said it rather superciliously, but however it's said) "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions!" call the director and tell him what happened and that you are annoyed and disconcerted by your opponent's attitude (unless you really don't care about that).

 

Whatever happens, at some point the director is going to have to investigate whether you really do have an agreement, and if so, what it is. And then the impact of MI and UI on the deal.

 

I think it's best to alert if you think there may be an alertable agreement, and to say "I don't know, look at our card" if they ask. BTW, in England, at least, if you think it's natural, in most cases you would not alert it, so while "I don't think it's natural" is extraneous if you do alert it, I don't think it conveys anything potentially useful to partner.

 

Also, you should make darn sure that before you leave the site (and preferably before the next round) you discuss this with your partner and come to a firm agreement, and then remember that agreement. If it later turns out that you keep forgetting it, replace it with an agreement you can remember.

[barmar]

Also, you should make darn sure that before you leave the site (and preferably before the next round) you discuss this with your partner and come to a firm agreement, and then remember that agreement. If it later turns out that you keep forgetting it, replace it with an agreement you can remember.

We have two pages of notes on continuations after our Mexican 2♦. The stuff on the first page contains the most common situations; they've come up enough that we generally remember them. The stuff on the second page comes up about once a year. Every now and then I reread it in the hope that it will stay in my memory, but I'm pretty sure I'll forget it if it comes up.

 

We probably should just get rid of that page, but I'm sure that if we do, we'll miss a slam the next week that we could have found using one of those bids. :(

[Trinidad]

What difference does it make to the UI whether he says "I've forgotten" or "I don't know"? Either way, partner has UI that he doesn't know what the meaning is.

None, but if you have to add: "I don't think it is natural." it does make a difference.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It seems to me you are bound to provide your opponents MI no matter what you do, even if you do nothing.

But wouldn't it be good to have a regulation that tries to minimize the amount of UI, rather than one where you also need to indicate that you think it isn't natural?

 

Rik

[pran]

Misinformation exists whenever opponents are not correctly informed about (relevant) partnership agreements/understanding - period.

 

Examples include (but are not Limited to):

Missing alert where alert is required.

Giving incomplete information.

Giving incorrect information.

 

According to this "We have no agreements about this call" could be correct information if it is true, but "I do not know" is always misinformation.

 

(It might be true that you do not know, but no partnershijp can ever have an agreement or understanding that the players do not know. The correct information in such cases could be "we have no agreement".)

[blackshoe]

But wouldn't it be good to have a regulation that tries to minimize the amount of UI, rather than one where you also need to indicate that you think it isn't natural?

Sure, but part of my point was that if the setup is such that if you don't alert your opponents can assume it's natural, then if you do alert, then saying you don't think it's natural is redundant and you shouldn't have to say it.