[barmar]

 gwnn, on 2015-December-09, 03:23, said:

(come to think of it, aren't gambling and wild kind of synonymous?).

Not really.

If you just randomly bid 7NT, that's wild. You don't really think there's any chance of making it, so it's not even a gamble. Before the SEoWG law, players might have done this because there's no downside -- the TD is going to adjust the result anyway.

[gwnn]

It is a gamble because you are betting on the TD adjusting when it's wrong.

[szgyula]

Just to further educate myself:

---

Explanations, as received by South (Screens in place):

2D: 9-13 HCP 5+♦, if ♦ is exactly 5, there is a 4+ second suit (any). 2NT and 3NT are not alerted.

There is a clear MI case. That is not the question. The question is the X of the 4♥. The TD ruled WoG of the SEWoG, i.e. not even serious error but wild or gambling. MP scoring, very good players. What do you think? Where is the line between "normal play", "logical alternative", "careless", "serious error", "wild, "gambling", etc.

[gwnn]

What was the explanation given and what was the real agreement?

[lamford]

Any discussion of whether an action is SEWoG which extends to more than one page means that the action is probably not SEWoG. It should be reserved for ludicrous plays like revokes, failing to win the setting trick against a game or slam, or bids that have no prospects whatsoever of being right. Pretty much as we are told by the EBU White Book.

[Trinidad]

 szgyula, on 2015-December-25, 07:07, said:

Where is the line between "normal play", "logical alternative", "careless", "serious error", "wild, "gambling", etc.

Just some qualifications from me:

• "Normal play":
  the plays, we wish we would make consistently.
  
• "logical alternative":
  a play that we would seriously consider, even if it objectively may not be best.
  
• "careless":
  the type of errors that we make every session and that we aim to get rid off (if we want to be better players). They may lead to (bad) partners shaking their heads (or act worse).
  
• "serious error":
  the type of errors that we make very rarely. They lead you to shake your head yourself (or act worse): "What (add expletive if needed) was I doing/thinking?"
  
• "wild or gambling":
  an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky.

We make a serious error less than once a year.
How often we do something wild or gambling depends on our character.

Rik

[barmar]

So where do you classify not taking the setting trick? I humbly admit that I do that far more than once a year.

Some of these things have to be taken in context, I suppose. At matchpoints you sometimes have to be greedy, and you may occasionally go to bed with the setting card because you were trying for a second undertrick.

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2015-December-25, 11:00, said:

Just some qualifications from me:

• "Normal play":
  the plays, we wish we would make consistently.
  
• "logical alternative":
  a play that we would seriously consider, even if it objectively may not be best.
  
• "careless":
  the type of errors that we make every session and that we aim to get rid off (if we want to be better players). They may lead to (bad) partners shaking their heads (or act worse).
  
• "serious error":
  the type of errors that we make very rarely. They lead you to shake your head yourself (or act worse): "What (add expletive if needed) was I doing/thinking?"
  
• "wild or gambling":
  an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky.

We make a serious error less than once a year.
How often we do something wild or gambling depends on our character.

Rik

Good job.

I would not have been as tactful about:

"wild or gambling":
an action that is made consciously and is destined to fail, unless one is (very) Lucky. and would add or expect the TD to rule in my favor if it doesn't work.

[szgyula]

So what is that double in the example? TD classified is as WoG. I think his definition is that "anything that is not perfect bridge is wild or gamling". Unfortunately, he has many students and they also think the same. Considering the number of TDs in the country (12), in Hungary, anything that is not normal play is WoG. "Normal play" is what the TD would have done, knowing all 52 cards...

[szgyula]

 gwnn, on 2015-December-25, 08:12, said:

What was the explanation given and what was the real agreement?

2♦ was explained correctly (see above) for both opponents. There was no alert for the 2N and the 3N on the side of South. Thus, 2N is invit to 3N, 3N accepts it with maximum.

On the other side of the screen, the correct explanation was given: 2NT forces partner to bid 3 ♣ (either stop in ♣ or strong invit with 55 in majors or GF with 54/45 in majors).

3N was not part of the system.

2N was stretching it a bit as it was only 54 in majors and 13HCP, i.e. close to GF but not quite.

[campboy]

 szgyula, on 2015-December-26, 04:26, said:

So what is that double in the example?

Ridiculous. I see no reason to think 4♥ is going off. They may well have stumbled into their fit; if they haven't partner will double them anyway.

[szgyula]

 campboy, on 2015-December-27, 06:02, said:

Ridiculous. I see no reason to think 4♥ is going off. They may well have stumbled into their fit; if they haven't partner will double them anyway.

Sure. Is it WoG?

[campboy]

 szgyula, on 2015-December-27, 17:01, said:

Sure. Is it WoG?

I think so. (If you were going to ask me which, probably both!)

[Trinidad]

 szgyula, on 2015-December-26, 04:26, said:

So what is that double in the example?

It probably is an E, but one that people make 100 times a year and certainly not of the 'S' variety. (Neither is it WoG.)

 szgyula, on 2015-December-26, 04:26, said:

TD classified is as WoG.

Now, that is a typical example of an SE...



Rik

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-December-25, 12:23, said:

So where do you classify not taking the setting trick? I humbly admit that I do that far more than once a year.

Some of these things have to be taken in context, I suppose. At matchpoints you sometimes have to be greedy, and you may occasionally go to bed with the setting card because you were trying for a second undertrick.

I think you answered the question already.

Of course, it depends on the situation, but a rough sketch:
At MPs, I might not even be an error, let alone an SE. (If you think that you can make 3♥, setting their vulnerable 3♠ 1 trick isn't going to give you a good score.)

At IMPs, I can see a lot of run of the mill contracts where not cashing the setting trick could be considered an SE for some players (but certainly not for all). But also in that case, you need to check three times: What was the information that the player had when he made the alleged SE. If you -in that player's shoes- have any kind of sympathy or understanding for his action, then it is not an SE. (An example of an error TDs can make in such a case is that they see (with all hands in view and with the correct informantion) that the player can simoply cash the trick, whereas the player (with the limited, or even wrong information that he had at the time) might be afraid that it gets ruffed or that declarer cannot possibly get rid of his losers and he will always get that trick anyway.)

Things also change when it is not a run of the mill contract, e.g. when the contract is (re)doubled. If the defender has every reason to expect that the contract will go two (or more) down when he postpones cashing the setting trick and only one down when he cashes it, it cannot be clasified as an error if you don't cash that trick. (Think of a situation where they sacrificed (vul) against your (non vul) making game. If your team mates don't sacrifice, you will lose 220 (200-420) or 6 IMPs if you cash the setting trick. If you get it 2 down, you win 80 (500-420) or 2 IMPs and if you get it 3 down, it will be a gain of 380 (800-420) or 9 IMPs. So cashing the setting trick might just like that cost you 8 or 15 IMPs.

So, even not cashing the setting trick is often not an SE.

Rik