BBO Discussion Forums: Difficult ruling, would be interested in opinions - BBO Discussion Forums

Note that the wording of this has changed in the 2017 Laws. It's now in 12C1(e), and says:

Quote

"serious error" has been changed to "extremely serious error", they got rid of "wild", and added additional clarification that it's intended to prevent double shots.

For many years players have paraphrased this law by saying "you still have to play bridge".

So I guess the new acronym will be ESEG.

barmar, on 2017-April-11, 09:14, said:

That would certainly be an improvement.

barmar, on 2017-April-11, 09:10, said:

Sometimes what seems to be a "double shot" is just the player not knowing what to do so as to prevent being damaged.

barmar, on 2017-April-11, 08:50, said:

You are raising good questions. I don't have the answers. Well for the last one I'd believe if there were universally excepted defaults, there could be no misunderstandings. Consequently, rather not.
As to the expections I'm afraid there are 'exceptions' which one would like to treat as such but, not having discussed them, one is willing to include them in the rule. And there are 'obvious exceptions' which one is not willilng to include in the rule even if undiscussed. With the word 'obvious' being interpreted within the background of personal experience, in other words, unpredictable.

By the way (although totally off-topic) I cannot upvote your posts, the '+' button is missing. Are you aware of this? Does it mean you have already reached your maximum possible number of '+'es ?

m1cha, He's an admin. Like all bureaucrats, it's impossible for him to be liked. Note: at least half of the previous statement is true.

I have never liked "failure to play bridge", because it was, at least in the ACBL, a way of defining "Serious Error" - "failure to play bridge for a player of the NOS' ability". I wouldn't mind "failure to play bridge" if we didn't qualify it that way, but we do.

Now the good thing is that this is where the elite players get nailed by the Laws/Regulations - the kind of thing that we'll nail Kamil for as a doubleshot/serious error/FtbB, won't necessarily disqualify Mr. and Mrs. Flight B, who aren't good enough to realize that this is a Serious Error. And, especially in the "suspicious of pros-that-push-the-envelope" ACBL, this is eminently correct and laudable. Unfortunately, it leads to being enforced as "failure to play bridge for a player of the TD's ability" - because even triggering "is this potentially SEWoG" is in the mind of the TDs, who will reasonably decide based on their skill.

One of the first things I had to learn as a tournament TD was "remember, not only are some players so much better than you are that you don't understand their problems, but some players are so much worse than you that you don't understand *their* problems either." And I still get tripped on that, as do we all. I do try to remind the new TDs about this, as well, in case they don't see it, before it blows up in their face.

mycroft, on 2017-April-11, 15:55, said:

I insist that exactly half of that statement is true.
Perhaps I'm just surprised that I haven't noticed the missing button earlier.

mycroft, on 2017-April-11, 15:55, said:

LOL. Last weekend I took part in a regional tournament. On one board, my partner and RHO passed, I opened 3♦. LHO kept thinking for about a minute while I had kind of a premonition of what was about to happen. Finally LHO passed indeed, mumbling something like "well, since she's weak", my partner passed, LHO bid 3♥, and I called the TD.
Well, she was allowed to play 3♥ and by the time we finished the board, the TD had walked around and asked three experts if they would bid with that hand in that situation. They all said no. They said she might have opened a weak two but not bid after 3♦. The lady still kept fighting, she insisted she couldn't open 2♥ with that hand but she had a genuine call of 3♥. Finally the TD said he would rectify the score to a diamonds contract, and if she didn't accept it she could call a jury later. She didn't, by the way. This was her hand:
♠73
♥JT7654
♦T
♣AK98
Not sure why she found that hand too bad for a weak two. Missing top honors in hearts or an outside ace perhaps. But how she could think her hand was too bad for a weak two but good enough for a 3♥ overcall, will remain her secret forever to me, to my partner, and probably also to the TD.

m1cha, on 2017-April-11, 18:38, said:

My regular partner, a fairly conservative bidder, probably wouldn't have opened it for those reasons. And I like to think he wouldn't balance with it, either.

Vampyr, on 2017-April-11, 09:54, said:

I'm not alone in advocating that you shouldn't try to work this out. Law 16 is for TDs when adjudicating, players should just think about 73, which says to avoid taking advantage of the UI.

barmar, on 2017-April-12, 08:20, said:

I am not sure what you are talking about. Since when does L73 apply to the NOS? What is UI with respect to them?

Vampyr, on 2017-April-12, 08:55, said:

Never, I was just confused.

But I don't see how you can use "not knowing what to do" as an excuse for making a totally crazy bid.

m1cha, on 2017-April-11, 18:38, said:

I wouldn't open 2H either in 1st or 2nd seat. Not because it is too bad a hand, but because it is unsuitable in the context of disciplined weak 2's. Bad suit, too much outside defense.

But with a PH to my right and a pre-empt to my left I would almost certainly balance over a 3rd seat 3D call. Especially considering the kinds of hands that have become 3rd seat 3 minor pre-empts.
It may not be right but that's what I would do.

Whatever poll the director takes should be phrased as "You play disciplined (ie: traditional) weak 2's. Would you balance?" I suspect that pass is still a LA, but there is no mystery to me.

barmar, on 2017-April-12, 08:17, said:

I think so. Opening it or not opening it in 2nd seat, either is okay. Not opening it and then balancing on the 3 level is strange. Not opening it and then balancing on the 3 level when partner has passed after thinking for a minute and then suggested she only passed because you didn't bid, is suicide.

barmar, on 2017-April-12, 15:17, said:

Not totally crazy, no, but what I am saying is that you can't condemn people for taking what appears to be a "double shot" when they are in a position they shouldn't have been in.

m1cha, on 2017-April-12, 15:50, said:

Opening is not OK if you play disciplined preempts, as noted above. Some people think that if you are dealt a 6-card suit, you have a God-given right to open at the two or three level. But many do not. I would pass and might well balance at matchpoints.

Question to m1cha: I know there was a comment, which is egregious, but did you hold out the Stop card for the correct amount of time?

Oh yes, I absolutely can condemn people for taking doubleshots when they are in a position they shouldn't be in. This isn't football or rugby with advantage play, or American Football with "result or penalty", or T20 cricket (where the penalty for "no ball" is "bowl it again, and the other side can't be made out.").

I agree with you, if a less-experienced player is in a new situation and makes a choice that we have to rule back on the "doubleshot" philosophy, I'm not going to tell them they're bad, and they should feel bad. Like any other judgment ruling, I will explain the situation, show how the Laws work, and why I have to rule the way I do. If I think it will help explain, I might use the "Probst Cheat" construction, or the "I know you weren't trying this, but someone who was trying to pull a fast one would..."

So, I guess not "condemn". But I will rule against them, per the Laws. If you, or any of my partners, pulls this stunt, there might be some condemnation. But unlike the newer players you want to protect, I expect you do know the Laws, and what they mean - and in many cases, why they're written that way.

Vampyr, on 2017-April-13, 00:49, said:

I am usually quite precise about my stop card but I also adapt to my opponents. This particular event was relatively relaxed. It happened frequently that I put down my stop card and after 2 - 3 seconds LHO reached to the bidding box to put down a pass or another card, upon which I hastened to remove the stop card. Nobody was bothered about those situations. I certainly didn't count to 10. Usually I would keep the stop card down for 6 - 8 felt seconds because that was as long as most opps were willing to wait. In that specific situation, sorry, I don't remember. I didn't count to 60 either and it would have been normal in that event for opps to think for another 10 seconds after the stop card had been removed. But here it wasn't 10 seconds, it was a multiple and not a small multiple. Rather more than a minute than less, I would say. Even then I wouldn't have complained if RHO hand't been a passed hand. But as a passed hand, she needs a good reason - and then that remark ...

mycroft, on 2017-April-13, 09:41, said:

Cricket has its own version of double-shot prevention on a No Ball (and I don't mean the literal "Hitting the Ball Twice" ) - you can still be Run Out.

Apologies for straying off-topic, and for speaking complete gibberish to anyone that has no knowledge of cricket.

The only thing I know about crickets is that they're noisy.

chrism, on 2017-April-13, 10:10, said:

And the IPL this weekend gave us an example of exactly that! Along with two hat-tricks in two successive games in one day.

Quote

Umm, yeah. What he said.