BBO Discussion Forums: Wild or Gambling? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Wild or Gambling?

#1 User is offline   LH2650 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 2004-September-29

Posted 2012-March-27, 19:38



The first double was alerted and explained as a Support Double. The actual agreement was more like "responsive" or "cards". South claimed that the 3 bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation. Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here? If so, do you feel that South's action reaches that standard? How would you adjust the score? The actual result was down one, and you can assume that 2 would have also been down 1.
0

#2 User is offline   xcurt 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 612
  • Joined: 2007-December-31
  • Location:Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Posted 2012-March-27, 20:33

It would help to know the class of player involved, although my gut reaction is that 3 is a sufficiently poor call that it broke the link.
"It is not enough to be a good player. You must also play well." -- Tarrasch
0

#3 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-March-27, 21:18

So south was expecting them to obey the law of total tricks and bid 3?

I actually have some sympathy with south but I am not a director, curious how this turns out.
0

#4 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-27, 22:43

View Postdwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 21:18, said:

So south was expecting them to break the law of total tricks and bid 3?

FYP

If his partner has the expected void, yet couldn't find a 3 call of his own, could it really be right to compete?

#5 User is offline   dwar0123 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 770
  • Joined: 2011-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, WA

Posted 2012-March-28, 00:22

View Postbarmar, on 2012-March-27, 22:43, said:

FYP

If his partner has the expected void, yet couldn't find a 3 call of his own, could it really be right to compete?

Duh, I cant count, ya no sympathy for south.
0

#6 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2012-March-28, 01:50

View PostLH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here? If so, do you feel that South's action reaches that standard?

Nowhere near, not even faintly. We normally reckon that there is a element of "deliberateness" about wild/gambling actions, ie, the guy must have known he was doing something extraordinarily off-beat to be wild/gambling. Serious errors are less deliberate, but nevertheless very serious errors. Ordinary everyday miscalculations come nowhere near. If you were telling us the guy bid 5H, 4C, or 3N or something, we'd have something to talk about.
0

#7 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2012-March-28, 02:11

View PostLH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here?

It's worth pointing out that wild or gambling actions do not have to be unrelated to the infraction in order to deny redress. Only in the case of a serious error does it matter whether it is related to the infraction. I agree with Iviehoff about the difference between SE and WoG, and that this is neither.
0

#8 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-28, 09:05

View PostLH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3 bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#9 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-March-28, 11:08

View PostLH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3 bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.


View Postbillw55, on 2012-March-28, 09:05, said:

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.

True, South's re-raise of his own raise is poor IMO, anyway.

But, stupid doesn't necessarily mean wild or gambling for the purpose of rulings.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#10 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,060
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2012-March-28, 15:22

I agree with "stupid, but not wild or gambling." Isn't South's hand *better* for hearts with the 5-1 break that actually existed than the 5-0 that he expected?

Yeah, so the 7-card fit will be harder to play than the 8, but enough to overcome "there's a chance I'm not getting to the board?"
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#11 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,840
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-March-29, 06:32

South's argument makes no sense. Result stands.

ahydra
0

#12 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-March-29, 06:37

View Postahydra, on 2012-March-29, 06:32, said:

South's argument makes no sense. Result stands.

ahydra

But the criterion is not whether South's argument makes sense. The criterion is whether South's action is wild or gambling (or a serious error, unrelated to the infraction).

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#13 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-29, 06:41

View Postaguahombre, on 2012-March-28, 11:08, said:

True, South's re-raise of his own raise is poor IMO, anyway.

But, stupid doesn't necessarily mean wild or gambling for the purpose of rulings.

What I mean is that I am inclined to be suspicious about south's statement. His "reasoning" is so silly that I consider it plausible that he was not thinking any such thing during the auction, and rather concocted it afterward to as a means to seek a favorable ruling.

Although I suppose suspicion does not enter into a ruling either. Oh well, I guess EW will not make this mistake again.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#14 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2012-March-29, 08:36

View PostTrinidad, on 2012-March-29, 06:37, said:

But the criterion is not whether South's argument makes sense. The criterion is whether South's action is wild or gambling (or a serious error, unrelated to the infraction).

Not for "result stands". If you were to rule wild or gambling you would still adjust for OS. In order to reach "result stands", ahydra presumably thinks that South would not have done anything differently with the correct explanation.

Personally I have no doubt South would have passed with correct information, but it is certainly something we need to decide as part of the ruling.
0

#15 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-March-29, 08:54

View Postbillw55, on 2012-March-28, 09:05, said:

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.

While true, the number of times in my life when a player has justified his action by saying that "partner must be short in {some suit}" when of course partner can see whether he is short is amazing.

View Postcampboy, on 2012-March-29, 08:36, said:

Personally I have no doubt South would have passed with correct information, but it is certainly something we need to decide as part of the ruling.

I wonder. I cannot see any justification for South's bid on either explanation and am not sure what difference it makes.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#16 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,840
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-March-29, 10:42

Trinidad raises a valid point. Did I mean "if the X had been explained correctly, South would still bid 3H" or did I mean "the 3H was a serious error unrelated to the MI"?

I think, when I wrote it, that South's argument made so little sense to me that I was classing 3H as a serious error. Just looking at the hand again, I'm sticking with that (though it would, of course, depend on the level of the players).

ahydra
0

#17 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-March-29, 14:02

View PostLH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3 bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.

This is obviously a self-serving statement, and I don't believe it. I want South to explain to me why he bid 3 with the given explanation. He will have to convince me that there is a reason why doing so is better when opps have a 5-3 spade fit than when they don't. If he can't, I will rule no damage.

(Note: it doesn't have to be a valid reason, but South must at least be convinced that it is.)
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#18 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2012-March-30, 02:16

I suspect he will say "because of the law of total tricks".
0

#19 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-March-30, 04:09

View Postcampboy, on 2012-March-30, 02:16, said:

I suspect he will say "because of the law of total tricks".

And that seems like a fine reason to me for a mediocre player who has only read "To bid or not to bid" and not "Following the Law".

At my club we used to have a pair that had "We follow the LAW" written on their CC. And they did, on the hands where it made sense as well as on the hands where it didn't.

I suspect that those guys would have bid 3 (with the explanation given at the table) even if they would have held SIX spades. ;)

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#20 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-30, 09:49

Did they miss the section of the book on reducing the number of total tricks when you have minor honors in the opponents' suit?

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users