[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-March-09, 02:29, said:

I think Lamford's suggestion that the case in question might be considered a serious error is a long way from the mark.

OK, based on the guidelines from your course, I agree. Should not a similar standard then be applied to bids that are serious errors, so that only something like a ridiculous leap to 7NT would deny redress? For example, if North-South passed out 5 Hearts here, would that be SEWoG? There were those who would have classed a double of 3NT in a much-discussed thread on here at SeWoG, and there were arguments that the defence there was a serious error too.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-March-08, 19:32, said:

But is not the purpose of 12c1b to require the non-offenders to continue to play bridge?

No, I don't think so. That is the old ACBL standard, not the current WBFLC standard.



Because of the discussion I went back to look at the hand. At first sight there are ten easy tricks. At second sight there are ten easy tricks. I really do not need a third sight: no doubt I could make 5♠ but it is not a serious error not to.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-09, 18:37, said:

Because of the discussion I went back to look at the hand. At first sight there are ten easy tricks. At second sight there are ten easy tricks. I really do not need a third sight: no doubt I could make 5♠ but it is not a serious error not to.

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2011-March-09, 02:29, said:

When we discussed Serious Errors at some length at the EBL TD's course in San Remo a year ago, with the benefit of advice from a world-class Dutch player, the conclusion was that the standard for considering an error to be serious was sufficiently high that the majority of examples we were given from real appeals should not have been considered serious errors.

The classic example we were given of when an error is bad enough to be considered a "Serious Error", is failing to cover a card in dummy when we have the card surrounded.

I think Lamford's suggestion that the case in question might be considered a serious error is a long way from the mark.

Gordon, is this advice documented and available? It would be a helpful resource for directors and appeals committees (and contentious forum members).

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 20:47, said:

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

i would use the ♦K ♠K and ♠7

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 20:50, said:

Gordon, is this advice documented and available? It would be a helpful resource for directors and appeals committees (and contentious forum members).

Unfortunately it's not, though it might be if/when the EBL update their website at http://eurobridge.or...ng/courses.html and display the course information as they have in previous years. I wrote to them about it a couple of times after the course (which was more than a year ago now) but then gave up. Perhaps someone else would like to ask.

I've found the information from previous years to be very useful. In particular there's a very interesting paper (on another topic) given by Bill Pencharz.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 20:47, said:

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

I have to agree that I was completely wrong in thinking that it was a serious error not to make 11 tricks in spades as you think that 5S has no play.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-09, 20:47, said:

Could you? Assuming a club lead, what three entries are you going to use to establish the diamonds and enjoy them? Unless I am missing something, Lamford's "serious error" consists of not somehow inducing the opponents to revoke.

I have not looked at it particularly carefully, but I do not see the point: since it is not blindingly obvious how to make eleven tricks, it is not a serious error not to.

gordontd, on 2011-March-10, 03:05, said:

Unfortunately it's not, though it might be if/when the EBL update their website at http://eurobridge.or...ng/courses.html and display the course information as they have in previous years. I wrote to them about it a couple of times after the course (which was more than a year ago now) but then gave up. Perhaps someone else would like to ask.

It took about nine months to even get Gordon's [and my] name onto the website.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-March-10, 05:06, said:

I have to agree that I was completely wrong in thinking that it was a serious error not to make 11 tricks in spades as you think that 5S has no play.

Serious error not to make it/has no play... surely it's not even worth quibbling about.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 09:06, said:

I have not looked at it particularly carefully, but I do not see the point: since it is not blindingly obvious how to make eleven tricks, it is not a serious error not to.

I suspect that if many of the players on this forum were in 5♠ in a teams match and failed and the other table made 5♠ so they lost 10 or 13 IMPs (I didnt look up the vulnerability) then they would consider they made a serious error.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-March-10, 13:44, said:

I suspect that if many of the players on this forum were in 5♠ in a teams match and failed and the other table made 5♠ so they lost 10 or 13 IMPs (I didnt look up the vulnerability) then they would consider they made a serious error.

So what? In order to approach the SEWOG requirement, a player would have to fail to make 10 tricks. And I am not entirely sure that is enough.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 13:47, said:

So what? In order to approach the SEWOG requirement, a player would have to fail to make 10 tricks. And I am not entirely sure that is enough.

On what basis do you make that judgement.

If not making 11 tricks is a serious error then you have contributed to your own damage and L12C1b applies.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2011-March-10, 16:59, said:

On what basis do you make that judgement.

If not making 11 tricks is a serious error then you have contributed to your own damage and L12C1b applies.

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2011-March-11, 06:39, said:

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

I am really not following this:

Quote

(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.

There is no "worse than" in the law.

A serious error is sufficient.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2011-March-14, 05:00, said:

I am really not following this:

There is no "worse than" in the law.

A serious error is sufficient.

I agree that a serious error should be sufficient, and I would agree that, if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error. However the interpretation of serious error in the EBU is that it must be egregious, and even some of those are excused it seems; and the examples that are given of serious errors allow many exceptions. A stronger word than serious is needed to accord with common usage.

[bluejak]

Only in your view. It seems to me that serious is a word that needs examples and interpretations to decide what level applies. The fact that you personally disagree with the interpretations and examples of the European Bridge League and the English Bridge Union is hardly enough to mean that the lawmakers have made a mistake in their use of this word. Furthermore, as we are having to say more frequently these days, this is not the forum for that. What we want to know here is how to rule Law 12C1B cases, not how individuals think the wording should be changed.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-March-14, 08:14, said:

What we want to know here is how to rule Law 12C1B cases, not how individuals think the wording should be changed.

I agree, so we need to decide what "serious" means in this context, and the WB expands on it. Cascade wrote: "if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error." Originally I concurred from a Law 12C1B point of view as well, but was persuaded by the other posters that "serious" is not interpreted in this way. I agree if I think a wording change is needed, then there is a forum section for that.

And where do I say that I disagree with the interpretations or examples of the EBL or EBU? In fact, the opposite - it was the examples in the WB that persuaded me that going off in 5S was not a "serious" error in this case.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-March-11, 06:39, said:

No, it seems that if not making 11 tricks is worse than a serious error then L12C1b applies. According to accepted practice.

lamford, on 2011-March-14, 07:54, said:

I agree that a serious error should be sufficient, and I would agree that, if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error. However the interpretation of serious error in the EBU is that it must be egregious, and even some of those are excused it seems; and the examples that are given of serious errors allow many exceptions. A stronger word than serious is needed to accord with common usage.

lamford, on 2011-March-14, 09:02, said:

I agree, so we need to decide what "serious" means in this context, and the WB expands on it. Cascade wrote: "if I went off in 5S on this hand, I would think I had made a serious error." Originally I concurred from a Law 12C1B point of view as well, but was persuaded by the other posters that "serious" is not interpreted in this way. I agree if I think a wording change is needed, then there is a forum section for that.

And where do I say that I disagree with the interpretations or examples of the EBL or EBU? In fact, the opposite - it was the examples in the WB that persuaded me that going off in 5S was not a "serious" error in this case.

I was merely following what you said, and assuming that is what you meant. Most of us seem to think that when Law 12C1B refers to a serious error it means a serious error: you have said "worse than serious error" and "A stronger word than serious is needed ...". So you do not, apparently, agree that serious error means serious error, based solely on what you wrote.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-March-14, 17:57, said:

I was merely following what you said, and assuming that is what you meant. Most of us seem to think that when Law 12C1B refers to a serious error it means a serious error: you have said "worse than serious error" and "A stronger word than serious is needed ...". So you do not, apparently, agree that serious error means serious error, based solely on what you wrote.

I agree that serious error means serious error but not in the way a bridge player unfamiliar with this Law would understand it.

[blackshoe]

So, what makes an error serious?