[Poky]

3S out of tempo

---

Is the double of 4♠ (by South) a "wild or gambling" action?

[Jeremy69A]

It's a gamble as partner may have KQJxxxx and nothing. It has some elements of a double shot if you are going to object to the action opposite the slow 3♠. I would expect a TD to consider this quite closely.

The current White Book in England says

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.

[gnasher]

Jeremy69A, on 2012-May-07, 05:50, said:

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.

This piece of text is fairly meaningless, because elsewhere the White Book implies that for an action to be considered a "double shot" it must also be gambling:

White Book said:

Suppose a player knows his opponents have done something wrong. They reach a final contract, and he judges that he will get an adjustment anyway. So he decides to try a gambling double: if he gets a good score, that is fine: if not, then he will presumably get an adjustment anyway.
This is known as the 'double shot'
...
N/S use unauthorised information to reach 4♠: if they had not used it they would only have reached 2♠. It always makes, however E/W find a stupid sacrifice using a "wild, gambling bid" with no possible justification. The Director judges that they expect to get a ruling if it does badly, and hope for a very fine score if it happens to be cheap. This is known as a "double shot" attempt.

[mr1303]

Double is not a call I would make. It could be very successful opposite the right hand for partner, and very unsuccessful opposite the wrong hand. It certainly smacks of a double shot. However, whether or not this constitutes wild or gambling I will leave to those who know more about it than I

[barmar]

Would you even consider making this double if it weren't for the possibility that you could get a ruling based on the UI? That's what makes it a double shot, unless maybe you were behind in a match and in a swinging mode (although even then, I think you would have to be careful not to take irregular action when there are legal issues like this involved).

[AlexJonson]

I'm puzzled here. Is a double shot illegal in the ACBL or in the EBU?

[nige1]

The poll is close. Suppose a director consulted colleagues and found opinions split evenly, would it be OK to rule "Wild and gambling"?

[barmar]

Seems OK to me. The poll results are just one tool. Unless the poll is overwhelming, I think he can still use his own judgement and other evidence (e.g. the player's explanation of his reason).

[nige1]

barmar, on 2012-May-07, 13:23, said:

Seems OK to me. The poll results are just one tool. Unless the poll is overwhelming, I think he can still use his own judgement and other evidence (e.g. the player's explanation of his reason).

Suppose the director-ruling is appealed and records show that some other Souths have doubled 4♠ on similar auctions without BITs:

• Is that evidence admissible?
• If so, should it affect the committee ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

This is quite tough as I think this hand can have major upsides from a double. Basically if partner has the A♣ and 12 other cards you have reasonable expectations of defeating this. Opps figure to have enough points between them that their spade fit may not in fact be that big (without the hesitation give the doubler a 4342 23 count for example), and partner might have something like xxx, x, Kx, AJ10xxxx where you're taking 800. He might also have x, xxx, Qx, KQJ10xxx and on a really bad day you're conceding 4x(x)+2.

I think it is gambling in the non technical sense of the word, but it's a pretty calculated gamble, and the question is "is the law intended to outlaw gambles that are better than ??/??", and what numbers are required for that to change over. I think double is close to with the odds, particularly if you have precise arrangements as to what constitutes 3♣ here (say 2 of top 3).

The other question is does the double necessarily suggest bidding on ? would you not also hesitate with Jxx, xx, xxx, 65432 trying to work out whether to sit it and if not whether to bid 3♦ or 3♠ ? or Qxxx, xxxx, xxx, xx deciding between 3♥/♠ ? Does this also depend on class of player ?

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-08, 03:16, said:

I think it is gambling in the non technical sense of the word, but it's a pretty calculated gamble, and the question is "is the law intended to outlaw gambles that are better than ??/??", and what numbers are required for that to change over. I think double is close to with the odds, particularly if you have precise arrangements as to what constitutes 3♣ here (say 2 of top 3).

Since it's paired with "wild", I've always interpreted it to mean a pretty low odds. It doesn't have to be as poor as the odds of winning the lottery, but perhaps the threshold should be something like 20% or 30%.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-May-08, 09:46, said:

Since it's paired with "wild", I've always interpreted it to mean a pretty low odds. It doesn't have to be as poor as the odds of winning the lottery, but perhaps the threshold should be something like 20% or 30%.

I basically agree, though I would put the threshold still somewhat lower. Nevertheless I would estimate the probability that 4♠ goes down as significantly higher than that.

In this case, I would at least seriously consider doubling. Partner has 7 clubs, the opponents 5. In general, I would already expect that partner has the ♣A for his unfavorable preempt. So that is not the problem.

The biggest problem for me is the question whether we will score the club ruff. I would expect a singleton with the takeout double and then I won't score my ruff. So, I would look at the opponents. What do I guess is their style of take-out doubles? That has little to do with objective, quantifiable, "percentage" criteria. It has everything to do with the gut feeling you have about the opponents.

If I estimate that the doubler will have a doubleton club, I will double. If I estimate that he will have a singleton (or void), I will pass.

Rik

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2012-May-07, 13:02, said:

I'm puzzled here. Is a double shot illegal in the ACBL or in the EBU?

No, not per se. But the specific double shot where an opponent has infracted and you try a gambling action on ht ebasis that if it fails you will get a ruling, despite being legal and ethical in many sports and mindsports [compare the 'free play' in American football or letting the play run under the 'advantage' rule in Rugby Union] it has always been anathema in bridge. Nowadays it is controlled by Law 12C1B [from memory: hope it is right] and the definition of SEWoG. In general a double shot of that type is considered 'gambling'. Other double shots are legal, for example playing a hand out without gambling to see if you do better.

barmar, on 2012-May-08, 09:46, said:

Since it's paired with "wild", I've always interpreted it to mean a pretty low odds. It doesn't have to be as poor as the odds of winning the lottery, but perhaps the threshold should be something like 20% or 30%.

It is not paired with wild: wild and gambling are two separate standards. Despite many people referring to wild and gambling it is in fact wild or gambling.

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-08, 15:32, said:

I basically agree, though I would put the threshold still somewhat lower. Nevertheless I would estimate the probability that 4♠ goes down as significantly higher than that.

In this case, I would at least seriously consider doubling. Partner has 7 clubs, the opponents 5. In general, I would already expect that partner has the ♣A for his unfavorable preempt. So that is not the problem.

The biggest problem for me is the question whether we will score the club ruff. I would expect a singleton with the takeout double and then I won't score my ruff. So, I would look at the opponents. What do I guess is their style of take-out doubles? That has little to do with objective, quantifiable, "percentage" criteria. It has everything to do with the gut feeling you have about the opponents.

If I estimate that the doubler will have a doubleton club, I will double. If I estimate that he will have a singleton (or void), I will pass.

Rik

If he has a singleton club, partner has to not be ruffing the second heart (or they need to be 4-1 too), so even doubler's singleton club is not a write off.

I think however that the odds of a singleton are quite small, wouldn't you be tempted to sit 3♣x at this vul with QJxx/KJxx ? so a singleton may have to be large or the 3♣ bidder will need a really good suit unless the 3♠ bidder has a lot of spades. In fact this could easily be what W was thinking about (QJxx(x), xx, xx(x), KJ8x say).

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 15:53, said:

It is not paired with wild: wild and gambling are two separate standards. Despite many people referring to wild and gambling it is in fact wild or gambling.

Quite so. But the fact that the alternative to gambling is wild does tend to colour what kind of a thing they have in mind for denying restitution. I do not think that in writing "wild or gambling", the laws had in mind withdrawing restitution because you bid a contract that was on a finesse, or two even, although any finesse is gambling. Indeed, even backing the favourite at 10-1 on is gambling.

I think we must interpret the word gambling here to mean some an action with lottery-like odds, not something that has odds similar to a finesse or two. That is why I voted No.

[blackshoe]

"Gambling" refers, I think, to an action you would not normally take but, because the opponents' actions or explanations have deprived you of bidding room or confused your understanding of partner's holding, you take it anyway.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 15:53, said:

It is not paired with wild: wild and gambling are two separate standards. Despite many people referring to wild and gambling it is in fact wild or gambling.

I understand that. I meant that the other things that disallow restitution ("serious error" or "wild") are extreme, which suggests that they intended "gambling" as an extreme as well.

Playing bridge is gambling, since there's always some random elements.