[VixTD]

This occurred in a local Swiss Pairs competition yesterday.

---

3♥ was an unassuming cue bid showing a good spade raise.
Before West's pass over 4♠, she made a flippant comment that there seem to be a lot of points in the pack, and similar. NS joined in the banter, after which West passed and the auction continued.
Result: 5♠(S)-1, NS-100

NS called the director at the end of play to query East's 5♥ bid after the comments. The facts were agreed by all players. When asked why he had bid 5♥, East said that he had opened light, his partner's raise to 2♥ could be very weak, he didn't think it likely that his side could defeat 4♠, but he had passed initially in case they stopped in three. He had decided that he was going to bid five over four a round earlier, and his action had not been influenced by any unauthorized information from his partner.

Would you have adjusted the score?

[paulg]

No.

[mich-b]

Regardless of the question if West's (inappropriate) comment may have influenced East's decision to bid 5♥,
I would like to note that South could :
1. Make the obvious double of 5♥ and collect an easy 800.
2. Make the contract of 5♠ by establishing a ♦ trick.

[iviehoff]

mich-b, on 2011-March-07, 08:30, said:

I would like to note that South could :
1. Make the obvious double of 5♥ and collect an easy 800.
2. Make the contract of 5♠ by establishing a ♦ trick.

These things have nothing to do with whether EW broke the law. Nor are they likely to be sufficiently bad errors to be SEWOG, and thus they have no effect on any adjustment.

Does W's comment demonstrably suggest E should bid 5H? No, I don't think so. W's comment suggests that he is likely to be good (in terms of HCP) for his 2H raise. I think that suggests against bidding 5H, not suggesting for it. So I think E's bid is more ethical than passing.

[FrancesHinden]

I can't see why the comment demonstrably suggests bidding 5H, so no adjustment.

[Jaom]

• I wouldn't say that W's comment demonstrably suggested bidding over passing unelss 2♥ is defined as system as weak (I mean if 2♥ might be strong [lets say up to 9 HPC] then I would be closer to the opinion that it did suggest).
• "He had decided that he was going to bid five over four a round earlier, and his action had not been influenced by any unauthorized information from his partner." - irrelevant
• Result stands

[bluejak]

Same view as Frances.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-07, 09:01, said:

<snip> Nor are they likely to be sufficiently bad errors to be SEWOG, and thus they have no effect on any adjustment. <snip>

I agree with those who argue no adjustment, but also believe that going off in 5S is worse than bad bridge, so if I were going to adjust, North-South would not benefit. I can't see any line other than establishing a diamond; I guess declarer drew two rounds of trumps first after the ace of clubs had been dislodged.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-March-07, 13:35, said:

I agree with those who argue no adjustment, but also believe that going off in 5S is worse than bad bridge, so if I were going to adjust, North-South would not benefit. I can't see any line other than establishing a diamond; I guess declarer drew two rounds of trumps first after the ace of clubs had been dislodged.

Are you suggesting that the line of play selected is (i) wild ;(ii) gambling; or (iii) a serious error unrelated to the infraction?

It looks as though this event was played in England in which case the EBU White Book advice applies:

EBU White Book 2010 said:

12.8 When to deny redress
See also #12.16, #12.17 and #12.20.
Introduction
Under Law 12C1B, the non-offending side does not receive relief for any damage caused, subsequent to the infraction, by “a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)” or by its “wild or gambling” action.
“Wild or gambling action”
Wild or gambling action is considerably worse than bad bridge. Note the following:
1. A wild or gambling action may be related to the infraction.
2. A wild or gambling action is usually a deliberate action or positive decision by the non-offending side. A serious error is, by its nature, generally an action that the player regrets immediately ie a ‘slip of the brain’.
3. The standard for denial of redress should be wild or gambling action by the non-offenders, without any reference to the possibility of a double shot being required. However, if there is an element of a double shot in the non- offenders’ action, it is normal to conclude that the action is wild or gambling.
4. The standard is ‘wild or gambling’, ie only one of those is required. It is often incorrectly quoted as ‘wild and gambling’.
5. 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.
6. A failure to take advantage of privileges provided by the Laws, such as not asking the meaning of a clearly alerted call or waiving a penalty, would often be considered ‘wild’.
"Serious Error”
It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
• 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.
• 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.

It seems to me that the actual declarer probably does not possess your fine analytical skills. The White Book tells is that "Beginners are expected to make beginners' errors" and by extension players in a local Swiss Pairs event are expected to make local players' errors.

[Mbodell]

I don't think playing for diamonds 3-3/not realizing you can establish them if they are 4-2 by playing them before pulling trumps can count as a serious error in the SEWoG sense.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-07, 16:02, said:

Are you suggesting that the line of play selected is <snip> a serious error unrelated to the infraction?

It looks as though this event was played in England in which case the EBU White Book advice applies:

It seems to me that the actual declarer probably does not possess your fine analytical skills. The White Book tells is that "Beginners are expected to make beginners' errors" and by extension players in a local Swiss Pairs event are expected to make local players' errors.

Yes, I believe going off in 5S is a serious error. I don't find anything to indicate that the event was played in England, and I am not aware where the poster is from, so I only looked at 12C1(b) which applies everywhere. The pair were clearly not beginners, as they used unassuming cue bids. If they were beginners, then I would completely agree with you; if they were intermediate, or whatever "local" players are (pub bridge players I presume), then I disagree. The Wbridge computer program - which is probably intermediate strength - had no trouble making 5S here. Yet that makes other errors which you would classify as serious, like passing cue bids occasionally. It requires no fine analytical skill to make 5S. If declarer could put a cold contract on the floor and still get redress, then why bother having 12C1(b)?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-March-08, 11:54, said:

I don't find anything to indicate that the event was played in England

The title of the original post gives a clue.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-March-08, 12:13, said:

The title of the original post gives a clue.

OK, I missed that. Then I agree it would be "especially lenient" to let the declarer off - although I am not adjusting anyway. Going off in 5S seems about equivalent to "ducking the setting trick against a slam". I have certainly done that myself before, as I expect most of us have.

And out of interest, how would opening a weak NT with a 20-count be "subsequent to the infraction" and lead to a contract which was only reached "as a consequence of the infraction"? I struggle to construct the scenario here - perhaps I lack imagination in coming up with hands. I guess we need a strong pass to start.

[FrancesHinden]

We're all agreed it's irrelevant to the ruling, but going off in 5S seems nothing like a 'serious error' to me in the context of the Laws. Saying it's equivalent to ducking the setting trick against a slam is just silly.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2011-March-08, 12:24, said:

And out of interest, how would opening a weak NT with a 20-count be "subsequent to the infraction" and lead to a contract which was only reached "as a consequence of the infraction"? I struggle to construct the scenario here - perhaps I lack imagination in coming up with hands. I guess we need a strong pass to start.

An opponent bids out of turn (the infraction), the bid is not accepted, and you then open a weak NT with 20 HCP (you assume that with the opponent having opening strength, your side couldn't have enough for game). If you miss a game because of this psyche, you can't blame it on the BOOT.

The clause that mentions "only as a consequence of the infraction" is independent of the one that talks about ridiculous calls or plays, so I'm not sure why you're putting them together in your question.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-March-08, 11:54, said:

Yes, I believe going off in 5S is a serious error. I don't find anything to indicate that the event was played in England, and I am not aware where the poster is from, so I only looked at 12C1(b) which applies everywhere. The pair were clearly not beginners, as they used unassuming cue bids. If they were beginners, then I would completely agree with you; if they were intermediate, or whatever "local" players are (pub bridge players I presume), then I disagree. The Wbridge computer program - which is probably intermediate strength - had no trouble making 5S here. Yet that makes other errors which you would classify as serious, like passing cue bids occasionally. It requires no fine analytical skill to make 5S. If declarer could put a cold contract on the floor and still get redress, then why bother having 12C1(b)?

The title says EBU. Even if VixTD has recently started to direct events for the Estonian Bridge Union, he would need to have regard to guidance from the WBF.

WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3 said:

A “serious error” should be judged according to the calibre of player.

"Failing to make that contract was an error. Even Paul's computer program made it so it must be a serious error" is a novel approach.

A better approach would be to assume that your computer had been programmed to declare hands as follows; take any obvious ruffs in dummy, then draw trumps, then work out what to do next. That it how many "local" players think. It could be argued that a player who normally adopts this strategy is just playing to his normal standard and may not have made an "error" at all, let alone a serious one. The fact that it would be routine for a Helgemo or a Lamford to make eleven tricks is hardly relevant.

Suppose that you were the non-offending declarer on some hand where the best (and winning) line was a backwash squeeze, but you missed this line at the table and drifted one off. Would you expect the TD to deny you redress for any earlier infraction by your opponents on that basis? "Helgemo made the same contract and my computer program, called Deep something, also had no difficulty in making it. Surely I'd expect Lamford to play at least as well as Deep something, which seems to have even less clue in the auction that Wbridge"

lamford, on 2011-March-08, 12:24, said:

OK, I missed that. Then I agree it would be "especially lenient" to let the declarer off - although I am not adjusting anyway. Going off in 5S seems about equivalent to "ducking the setting trick against a slam". I have certainly done that myself before, as I expect most of us have.

And out of interest, how would opening a weak NT with a 20-count be "subsequent to the infraction" and lead to a contract which was only reached "as a consequence of the infraction"? I struggle to construct the scenario here - perhaps I lack imagination in coming up with hands. I guess we need a strong pass to start.

As I read it, opening a weak NT with a 20-count was given as an example of the type of call which might be considered a serious error; nowhere was it claimed that it was subsequent to any infraction.

[barmar]

Players go down in easy contracts they should have made all the time. I think I even did so once.

The EBU guideline is trying to help TDs understand the distinction between ordinary errors and those that are "serious", as well as "wild or gambling" actions.

The other important thing is that the serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction. Suppose you start drawing trumps, and one of the opponents revokes, so you think there's a horrible trump break. You'll almost certainly switch to a different line of play than you initially planned. If you play reasonably based on the assumed trump break and go down, your failure could be considered a consequence of the infraction. If the normal revoke penalties don't restore equity, the TD can adjust.

In contrast, missing a game because you decide to psyche after a BOOT would not be considered a consequence of the infraction, it's because of your own decision to psyche. You could argue that the BOOT made the psyche the percentage action, but you don't get a double shot just because of the infraction.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-08, 16:29, said:

"Failing to make that contract was an error. Even Paul's computer program made it so it must be a serious error" is a novel approach.

If someone failed to make a contract on a backwash squeeze after an infraction by the opponents, of course I would not deny him or her redress. But is not the purpose of 12c1b to require the non-offenders to continue to play bridge? The interpretation in the White Book seems quite a bit removed from this; that says all you have to do to get redress is pretty much to avoid revoking or ruffing your partner's trick.

Some people argued in another thread that a 5D bid was WoG, and that to me seemed quite wrong the other way - it was nowhere near that. In this example, the player was in 5S instead of 4S. Both are cold on normal play. I would agree that 5S is not a WoG bid, nor a serious error. I think a forcing pass is right, but can live with Double or 5S. But what about the play? If diamonds had been 3-3 and trumps 3-1 and declarer had gone off, would you now regard it as a serious error? Is the definition of serious error in the White Book recommended by the WBFLC and how would other jurisdictions define it? I am quite happy to have that Law kicked out entirely, but there does not seem much logic in only requiring the non-offender(s) to avoid playing absurdly!

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-08, 16:29, said:

As I read it, opening a weak NT with a 20-count was given as an example of the type of call which might be considered a serious error; nowhere was it claimed that it was subsequent to any infraction.

So why is it given an example of a serious error? Does the term refer to errors that are not subsequent to any infraction? It was more the quaint choice of example that amused me, as it has no real relevance.

[gordontd]

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.