[blackshoe]

This question arose in a thread where a player missed an opponent's alert. There are other things one might miss if one is not paying attention - a call, a play, a mannerism (by partner or an opponent), perhaps others. "Not paying attention" is an error, certainly, but is it a serious error in the meaning of the law? Is it always "unrelated to the infraction" if there is an infraction? I tried to keep the choices simple. Please explain your reasoning, citing law, regulation, or other precedent in support of your position.

[jallerton]

It depends. By not paying sufficient attention, a player might miss an inference from an opponent's mannerism. He might miss an inference so subtle that not many people would notice anyway.

On the other hand, by not paying sufficent attention, a player might revoke. Revoking has been used in a WBFLC example of a serious error case, so presumably revoking is considered by the lawmakers to be one.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-March-12, 16:44, said:

It depends. By not paying sufficient attention, a player might miss an inference from an opponent's mannerism. He might miss an inference so subtle that not many people would notice anyway.

On the other hand, by not paying sufficent attention, a player might revoke. Revoking has been used in a WBFLC example of a serious error case, so presumably revoking is considered by the lawmakers to be one.

So there are some things one might do because one is not paying attention which are SEs and some which are not. Fair enough. Are all infractions of law due to not paying attention SEs?

[Trinidad]

"Not paying sufficient attention" comes in various gradations. The question you are polling here is not very representative of the original question.

The original question was whether not noticing that an opponent alerted (when the alert was done properly and the alerter has every reason to assume that the alert was noticed) was a serious error. I said before that, to me, this is an error that is as serious as a revoke.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-12, 17:50, said:

"Not paying sufficient attention" comes in various gradations. The question you are polling here is not very representative of the original question.

The original question was whether not noticing that an opponent alerted (when the alert was done properly and the alerter has every reason to assume that the alert was noticed) was a serious error. I said before that, to me, this is an error that is as serious as a revoke.

Rik

I am trying to determine where the boundaries are. That's why I started a new thread.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 17:46, said:

So there are some things one might do because one is not paying attention which are SEs and some which are not. Fair enough. Are all infractions of law due to not paying attention SEs?

Whether something is an SE or not depends on the level of the player. For Jeff Meckstroth, missing a squeeze is a serious error. For Aunt Millie, revoking is not a serious error.

However, the way I see it, for the vast majority of players any technical infraction of law (whether due to not paying attention or otherwise) is a serious error. (Where technical infractions are non ethical infractions, such as leads out of turn, penalty cards, insufficient bids, revokes, etc.)

Rik

[chrism]

Not paying attention is of itself a violation of etiquette (74B1). If it results in a serious error, it is probably moot whether the inattention is independently considered an additional serious error. However, perhaps a sophist could claim a chain of causality where the inattention was both a consequence of an opponent's infraction and the cause of an error ostensibly unrelated to that infraction, thus escaping a SEWoG ruling. I don't think that it is desirable to allow a player to claim "I revoked because I made the serious error of being distracted by the opponent's lead out of turn, so the revoke was consequent on the LOOT and 12C1B does not prevent me from getting relief", so I am inclined to confine "serious error" to specific errors in play, bidding or procedure rather than to their putative origins in a player's mental state.

[blackshoe]

I am not at all sure I understand the previous post. OTOH, it's nearly 3 AM and I'm tired. So I'll just say goodnight.

[pran]

This thread concerns violations of Law 74B1.

First of all this Law uses the Word "should", which as dictated in the introduction means that violation "is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized".

We have irregularities where the reaction is automatic (e.g. revokes) and we have irregularities where the reaction depends on judgement by the Director. In itself a violation of Law 74B1 is minute, but the consequence of such inattention can easily be an immediate and (very) serious error.

The seriosity of not paying attention therefore depends on the immediate consequences of this irregularity.

(An alternative approach could be to always treat a violation of Law 74B1 completely separated from an irregularity that is even direct consequence of such violation.)

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 17:46, said:

So there are some things one might do because one is not paying attention which are SEs and some which are not. Fair enough. Are all infractions of law due to not paying attention SEs?

If the infraction is likely to cost the infractor, I think it would always be a serious error. However, that's in the nature of an "infraction that is likely to cost the infractor", rather than because it's caused specifically by inattention.

Here are some examples of infractions that may be caused by inattention but aren't serious errors:
- Prolonging play unnecessarily.
- Causing annoyance to another contestant.

[mfa1010]

Other.

Inattention is not a serious error.
Inattention could lead to a serious error.

We don't care if inattention is the cause for a serious error. We evaluate the error on its own seriousness. (And if it is related to the infraction when we are adjusting.)

It takes a greal deal to rule that an alert was properly made, if it is claimed by an opponent not to have been made or seen. But if an alert was ruled to have been made as a matter of fact, then the opponents are assumed to have the information that lies with the alert. If they later make a serious error, we don't care if it is because of the inattention of the alert or some other random brain fart.

[barmar]

I'm with mfa1010, but I voted No on that basis rather than Other.

I think when the Law talks about SEs, it's talking about errors in bidding or playing.

If it were itself a SE, I think it would be very rare that it could be ruled to be related to some previous infraction by the opponent. The only exception I can think of offhand would be a violation of proprieties that interferes with attention, e.g. an opponent distracting you while his partner is alerting ("hey, is that Bill Gates over there?").