[mrdct]

Made 5 tricks for +1100 for NS.

---

This hand arose in the final round of the swiss qualifying in Australia's premier open teams event.

Both teams, at the time running 14th (EW) and 16th (NS) out of 162 team and about 10 VPs off the pace, were mathematical to make the knockout stage (top eight) with a big win.

North, East and South are all under-21, but with plenty of international representative experience. The three youth players have all played with and against one another regularly over a number of years and were well familiar with their respective styles. East has a reputation for wild preempts when non-vul, but not ridiculous when vul. West was me, a fairly experienced player with the capacity to do some good stuff but also burdened by an unacceptably high error rate.

A ruling was sought by East-West suggesting that the reopening double by North was informed by South's break in tempo with pass being a logical alternative, in which case the result would most likley be 2♠E-2 for NS +200.

The ruling TD, after consulting with his fellow directors but not with any players, concluded that pass was not a logical alternative for North and allowed the table result to stand. The closed room result was 3♣XN= for NS +670 so the table result translated to 10 imps for the "offending side", whereas the ruling sought by the "non-offending side" would've resulted in 10 imps for the other team - so up to 20 imps and about 4 VPs at stake.

After conducting their own poll of several youth and open representative players, none of whom reopened with the North cards, and getting the go ahead from an appeals advisor that an appeal would have significant merit, east-west appealled.

Following the regulations for appeals in Australia, the ruling TD outlined the basis of his ruling, east-west put forward the view that pass was a logical alternative backed-up by evidence of the poll they conducted, and North rationalised her reopening double on the basis that she has seen the quality of East's preempts before and felt there was a good chance of collecting a large penalty in a match they need to win by a big margin. The appeals committee quized North and South quite extensively about their respective actions, but asked no questions about West's 3♣ bid and gave no indication that they might consider a SEWoG ruling. The players and the ruling TD were dismissed and the appeals committee retired to consider their ruling.

Eventually, the appeals committee ruled that pass was a logical alternative for North and adjusted the score for the "offending side" to 2SE-2 for NS +200 and a loss of 10 imps (an adjustment of 20 imps from the table result). For the "non-offending side" the appeals committee determined that West's 3♣ bid was a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or a wild or gambling action and applied Law 12C1(b) concluding that 15 imps of the 20 imps lost at the table through running from 2♠X were self-inflicted and adjusted the non-offending side's score by 5 imps only.

West felt somewhat aggrieved by the ruling as there was no suggestion either by the ruling TD or during the appeal committee's hearing that 3♣ might have been treated as a SEWoG and if that matter had been raised during the hearing West would've had the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence; including a very similar hand from a little over a year ago where in an identical auction East passed a rescue redouble and went for -2200. West freely admits that 3♣ was a poor bid but maintains that it wasn't a bid made without some thought and consideration of the state of the match, state of the event, partnership preempting style and a risk of a rescue redouble being passed.

Some unresolved questions in West's mind:

1. What constitutes a "serious error"?
2. What does "unrelated to the infraction" mean?
3. If an appeals committee is going to consider a SEWoG ruling, should they be obliged to quiz the non-offending player who made the potential SEWoG as to his or her rationalisation of the action as a matter of natural justice?

[axman]

mrdct, on 2012-January-30, 20:01, said:

Made 5 tricks for +1100 for NS.

---

This hand arose in the final round of the swiss qualifying in Australia's premier open teams event.

Both teams, at the time running 14th (EW) and 16th (NS) out of 162 team and about 10 VPs off the pace, were mathematical to make the knockout stage (top eight) with a big win.

North, East and South are all under-21, but with plenty of international representative experience. The three youth players have all played with and against one another regularly over a number of years and were well familiar with their respective styles. East has a reputation for wild preempts when non-vul, but not ridiculous when vul. West was me, a fairly experienced player with the capacity to do some good stuff but also burdened by an unacceptably high error rate.

A ruling was sought by East-West suggesting that the reopening double by North was informed by South's break in tempo with pass being a logical alternative, in which case the result would most likley be 2♠E-2 for NS +200.

The ruling TD, after consulting with his fellow directors but not with any players, concluded that pass was not a logical alternative for North and allowed the table result to stand. The closed room result was 3♣XN= for NS +670 so the table result translated to 10 imps for the "offending side", whereas the ruling sought by the "non-offending side" would've resulted in 10 imps for the other team - so up to 20 imps and about 4 VPs at stake.

After conducting their own poll of several youth and open representative players, none of whom reopened with the North cards, and getting the go ahead from an appeals advisor that an appeal would have significant merit, east-west appealled.

Following the regulations for appeals in Australia, the ruling TD outlined the basis of his ruling, east-west put forward the view that pass was a logical alternative backed-up by evidence of the poll they conducted, and North rationalised her reopening double on the basis that she has seen the quality of East's preempts before and felt there was a good chance of collecting a large penalty in a match they need to win by a big margin. The appeals committee quized North and South quite extensively about their respective actions, but asked no questions about West's 3♣ bid and gave no indication that they might consider a SEWoG ruling. The players and the ruling TD were dismissed and the appeals committee retired to consider their ruling.

Eventually, the appeals committee ruled that pass was a logical alternative for North and adjusted the score for the "offending side" to 2SE-2 for NS +200 and a loss of 10 imps (an adjustment of 20 imps from the table result). For the "non-offending side" the appeals committee determined that West's 3♣ bid was a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or a wild or gambling action and applied Law 12C1(b) concluding that 15 imps of the 20 imps lost at the table through running from 2♠X were self-inflicted and adjusted the non-offending side's score by 5 imps only.

West felt somewhat aggrieved by the ruling as there was no suggestion either by the ruling TD or during the appeal committee's hearing that 3♣ might have been treated as a SEWoG and if that matter had been raised during the hearing West would've had the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence; including a very similar hand from a little over a year ago where in an identical auction East passed a rescue redouble and went for -2200. West freely admits that 3♣ was a poor bid but maintains that it wasn't a bid made without some thought and consideration of the state of the match, state of the event, partnership preempting style and a risk of a rescue redouble being passed.

Some unresolved questions in West's mind:

1. What constitutes a "serious error"?
2. What does "unrelated to the infraction" mean?
3. If an appeals committee is going to consider a SEWoG ruling, should they be obliged to quiz the non-offending player who made the potential SEWoG as to his or her rationalisation of the action as a matter of natural justice?

By my reckoning your team lost 15imps; and the other team lost 10 imp not including the PP that should have been assessed.

ps. Does Australia still not provide for a 10s non tempo sensitive skip bid pause?

[mrdct]

axman, on 2012-January-31, 00:49, said:

By my reckoning your team lost 15imps; and the other team lost 10 imp not including the PP that should have been assessed.

ps. Does Australia still not provide for a 10s non tempo sensitive skip bid pause?

The AC's decision resulted in my team turning a 10 imp loss into a 5 imp loss and the other team turning a 10 imp gain into a 10 imp loss; so we gained 5 imps and they lost 20 imps. No PP was assessed, which would be quite rare here especially after a 20-imp adverse result for the offending side and the provision of at least some half-ways rational reason for the reopening double.

You are correct that Australia does not use Stop cards and does not have mandatory skip bid pauses.

[Trinidad]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the way the AC calculated this? (That would probably mean that I did something wrong.)

The table result was +1100 for NS. Now, let's just say -for argument's sake- that 3♣ was a SEWoG. The correct bid would have been Redouble and EW would have ended in 3♦X.

I find it still pretty hard to make 5 tricks, but let's say that the AC thinks that I would make 5 tricks. Then, the damage that was due to my SEWoG is zip. Let's say that the AC thinks that in 3♦X, you can take 6 tricks. Then we would have obtained a result of +800 for NS. After the comparison with the other table (+670) this leads to a difference if 130 or 4 IMPs to NS. In other words, in that case the SEWoG caused a damage of 6 IMPs. And EW should be compensated 14 IMPs instead of 15.

To flip it around: You can also calculate what score the AC must have thought that EW would achieve without the SEWoG. This means that the score on the board has to be between 840 and 880. I cannot come up with a way for EW to score between -840 and -880, after 2♠ has been doubled.

Which leads to my question: Did the AC actually state the result that would be obtained without the SEWoG? Or did they arbitrarily deduct 5 IMPs from the EW score?

Rik

P.S. IMO, 3♣ is not the greatest bid ever made, but I would not call it a SEWoG.

[mrdct]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-31, 14:02, said:

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the way the AC calculated this? (That would probably mean that I did something wrong.)

...

Which leads to my question: Did the AC actually state the result that would be obtained without the SEWoG? Or did they arbitrarily deduct 5 IMPs from the EW score?

Rik

P.S. IMO, 3♣ is not the greatest bid ever made, but I would not call it a SEWoG.

To be honest I didn't fully understand it either, but as it was explained to me the AC felt that if I'd taken the "normal" action of passing 2♠x we would've had a table result of -500 against 670 in the closed rooom for +5 imps (which would've been adjusted at appeal to +10 imps with the removal of the double) but instead I chose to bid 3♣ which went for -1100 and turned the result into -10 imps. Essentially the AC believed that, my (SEWoG) action cost my team 15 imps, so are giving us back the 20 imps we gained from the reopening double being rubbed-out, but taking away the 15 imps that they believe was self-inflicted by my SEWoG for a net adjustment of 5 imps.

In discussing this hand with a few other expert players, "pass" is the overwhelming favourite with a few bidding 2NT and some redoubling for rescue (which I was personally a bit nervous about as described in the OP). imho, 3♣ was an error, possibly even a "serious error", but it was clearly related to the infraction and I don't think it was a wild or gambling action; but I'm still keen to hear the group's views on what "serious error" and "unrelated to the infraction" actually mean. The danger with hands like this is that it's probably going to sway me towards never running after a "hesitsation trap pass" and seeing how I go at the table in partner's doubled preempt and then take my second chance with a ruling if the reopening double was suspect.

[bluejak]

mrdct's description of the way the SEWoG was applied sounds as though it was correctly applied, though as a matter of detail I believe that the AC should say what they consider the ruling should have been and the TD should do the calculation.

If players are going to re-open with doubles on minimum off-shape hands then they need to say so on their SCs or alert his pass and explain the expectations of the pass, or expect adverse rulings once partner hesitates. Thus I consider the TD ruling clearly wrong since it is not suggested that N/S did any of these.

Quote

North rationalised her reopening double on the basis that she has seen the quality of East's preempts before and felt there was a good chance of collecting a large penalty in a match they need to win by a big margin

This is what really shows the ruling was wrong: the fact that North tried to rationalise her double showed she realised that others would pass. Thus double would have been reasonable without the UI but illegal with it - and I am afraid the evidence suggests North knew it.

Quote

1. What constitutes a "serious error"?

This is a matter of judgement. But as was demonstrated at the EBL TD course in San Remo, if there is any doubt, then it is not a serious error. Typically it is a revoke, completely forgetting the system, miscounting an easy hand, or something really bad of that ilk. A misjudgement is not a serious error. In my view the 3♣ bid might be considered a serious error since it is quite likely to change a 6-0 fit into a 5-1 fit. Why on earth did West not redouble if he wanted to run?

Quote

2. What does "unrelated to the infraction" mean?

Exactly what it says. If you revoke, the infraction has not made you revoke, so your revoke is unrelated to the infraction.

Quote

3. If an appeals committee is going to consider a SEWoG ruling, should they be obliged to quiz the non-offending player who made the potential SEWoG as to his or her rationalisation of the action as a matter of natural justice?

ACs conduct their investigation as they see fit and they are not obliged to do it in any way that the players think they should.

[lamford]

My view is that Pass is an LA for North, and that doubling is demonstrably suggested. It is poor that Australia does not have a 10 second rule, but the BIT is still UI.

I think Pass and Redouble are close instead of 3C. I believe 2Sx can be held to five tricks on a diamond lead and diamond back, which looks normal, and East-West cannot make more than five tricks in any contract. At the worst, therefore, the SeWoG costs 300 points, but if Redouble is not SeWoG there is no loss. It does seem unrelated to the infraction.

[nigel_k]

Good post. I don't know the answer but can I maybe ask some followup questions;

1. Is it correct that serious error only matters if it unrelated to the infraction, but a wild or gambling action need not be related to the infraction?

2. If so, is it correct that West's 3♣ was related to the infraction therefore it doesn't matter whether it was a serious error.

3. Apologies in advanced to the OP, but if 3♣ is not wild or gambling here, can anyone give an example of a 3♣ bid in this auction that would be wild or gambling?

[FrancesHinden]

It's not a question you asked, but I have one observation to make:

Quote

east-west put forward the view that pass was a logical alternative backed-up by evidence of the poll they conducted

I have seen a large number of 'player polls' carried out by pairs who didn't like a ruling. In every single case, the results of the poll overwhelmingly support their position. Obviously there is some selection bias here to start with, but there seems to be more to it than that: it must be something in the way people* carry them out when they really care about the result. Hence, speaking as a frequent member of ACs and the National Authority, I put very little credence in player polls. (Perhaps if I were told the exact question and the method of polling and the pollees I'd feel differently but that never happens.)

*Really, everybody. I'm 100% on this. One of my teammates appealed a hand from the premier league including the results of a player poll which totally supported our position, and (to the team's disappointment but my personal amusement) the referee ignored that as well.

[FrancesHinden]

mrdct, on 2012-January-30, 20:01, said:

2. What does "unrelated to the infraction" mean?
3. If an appeals committee is going to consider a SEWoG ruling, should they be obliged to quiz the non-offending player who made the potential SEWoG as to his or her rationalisation of the action as a matter of natural justice?

2. I struggle with this as well, because almost any error is going to be related to the infraction to some extent, unless it actually happened first. If you revoked, you might be able to say that (e.g.) without the infraction you'd have been dummy, or the contract would have been different. Here, you might argue that as the infraction was not passing out 2S, anything that happened subsequently in either the auction or the play in a non-2S contract must be related to the infraction. I don't think this is what is intended, but then it's hard to define in theoretical terms what is. In this case I might rather say that bidding 3C was wild and/or gambling, and then I don't have to answer the question.

3. They aren't obliged to, but I agree that they ought to do so. In the general case there might be some system inferences that they aren't aware of. But they might have ruled that even if West was frightened of -2200, it was still totally bizarre to bid 3C rather than either pass or 2NT.

[mrdct]

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

Good post. I don't know the answer but can I maybe ask some followup questions;

1. Is it correct that serious error only matters if it unrelated to the infraction, but a wild or gambling action need not be related to the infraction?

2. If so, is it correct that West's 3♣ was related to the infraction therefore it doesn't matter whether it was a serious error.

3. Apologies in advanced to the OP, but if 3♣ is not wild or gambling here, can anyone give an example of a 3♣ bid in this auction that would be wild or gambling?

1. Serious errors can only get pinged for self-inflicted damage if they are unrelated to the infraction; whereas wild or gambling action can be pinged irrespective of any relationship to the infraction. It seems to be strongly implied that "wild or gambling" is stronger than "serious error" for the purposes of applying the self-inflicted damaages provisions of the Laws.

2. That's the main thing I'm trying to get my head around. Essentially I made a bridge decision to run from a doubled contract in circumstances where the double had been made in breach of the Laws which to mind established a relation between the two actions.

3. I've already admitted that 3♣ was poor, but I had my reasons for doing it. I guess an example of a "wild or gambling" 3♣ bid would be something like a preempt on a 4-card suit.

[lamford]

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

1. Is it correct that serious error only matters if it unrelated to the infraction, but a wild or gambling action need not be related to the infraction?

According to Grattan Endicott, I think secretary of the WBF Laws Committee, on a Laws forum, that is a grammatical error in 12C(i)b which will be corrected in the next edition. The intention was to treat serious error and wild or gambling in the same manner. It currently reads:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

The intention was, as I understand it, for it to read:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action, either of which are unrelated to the infraction, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

Yet another example of the Laws being wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

Should the appeals committee consider that XX rather than P or 3♣ is not an unreasonable action and would dial at least 800, so the 1100 should be compared with that not 500 if SEWoG is ruled ?

[bluejak]

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

Good post. I don't know the answer but can I maybe ask some followup questions;

1. Is it correct that serious error only matters if it unrelated to the infraction, but a wild or gambling action need not be related to the infraction?

Correct.

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

2. If so, is it correct that West's 3♣ was related to the infraction therefore it doesn't matter whether it was a serious error.

No. The infraction did not cause him to bid 3♣.

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

3. Apologies in advanced to the OP, but if 3♣ is not wild or gambling here, can anyone give an example of a 3♣ bid in this auction that would be wild or gambling?

Probably not. The EBU thought it unusual though not necessarily impossible for a WoG action to be somewhat deliberate.

lamford, on 2012-February-01, 17:46, said:

According to Grattan Endicott, I think secretary of the WBF Laws Committee, on a Laws forum, that is a grammatical error in 12C(i)b which will be corrected in the next edition. The intention was to treat serious error and wild or gambling in the same manner. It currently reads:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

The intention was, as I understand it, for it to read:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action, either of which are unrelated to the infraction, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.

Yet another example of the Laws being wrong.

Either that or Grattan being wrong. At San Remo the Chairman of the WBFLC gave his opinion that the words "unrelated to the infraction" were superfluous and should not have been included at all. Some of the people who strongly disagreed with him were members of the WBFLC, and in some cases they suggested the wording was completely correct. I think odd comments of this nature are not worth worrying about because despite the quality of the source the WBFLC is often not of one mind, we are not expected to follow such odd comments, and if it is changed we can worry about it then.

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on 2012-February-01, 13:21, said:

2. If so, is it correct that West's 3♣ was related to the infraction therefore it doesn't matter whether it was a serious error.

bluejak, on 2012-February-01, 18:36, said:

No. The infraction did not cause him to bid 3♣.

This seems an obtuse way to "unrelated" error.

A relationship is not necessarily based on causality.

[nigel_k]

Also, it's not obvious to me that there is no causation.

It's not a philosophy forum but quite a few people regard 'x caused y' as equivalent to 'if x had not happened then y would not have happened'. Certainly without the infraction the 3♣ would not have occurred because the auction would have been over.

Returning to the practical application of bridge laws, I'm still not clear at all on which subequent events are and are not related to an infraction.

[mrdct]

It's a self-serving position, but I would argue that the offending double by North is inextricably connected to whatever action West choose to take such as XX, 3♣, 3♦ & 3♥ as each of those calls takes an entirely different meaning to what would apply without competition. In the case the reopening double put West under presure to decide whether to sit or run, and if the latter, how to run. West got it wrong and is living with the shame and embarrassment of his actions, but he could quite easily have hit partner with 3♣ and possibly even played it undoubled if North had reopened with a 2443 shape (which was well within system).

If the auction had started the same way, but instead of passing second time around South bids 3NT, an action such as Dbl by West would, imho, be unrelated to the infraction as there was no compulsion to bid. If 3NT then made and the double was judged to be a serious error, I think East-West would need to wear the self-inflicted portion of the damage (i.e. something like NS get adjusted back to 2♠E-2 for +200 but for EW you make the same adjustment, but dock them 4 imps for double of 3NT).

[Trinidad]

In cases like this, it may be good to think why there is a rule about SEWoGs to begin with. It is there to prevent the Non Offending Side (NOS) from trying to get lucky. If this rule wouldn't be there, the NOS can try to obtain a good result by taking an antipercentage action. If this action works, they win. If this action doesn't work, they don't lose since the TD will come and get them the normal result on the board.

When I had just started playing bridge I did it myself in the classic situation: It was fairly obvious that the opponents used UI to bid 5♥ over our 4♠. I knew that the TD would rule it back to 4♠ anyway, so I bid 6♠, just in case it made (which was not likely, but far from impossible). Well, as expected, it didn't. The TD, correctly, ruled it a SEWoG. I had never heard of SEWoGs before, but the TD explained it all very nicely to my partner and me.

So, the way I always interpret this law is that I separate the serious errors (SEs) from the wild or gambling actions (WoGs), just as it is currently written. The action that I took was clearly wild or gambling. It was certainly related to the infraction. After all, if there wouldn't have been an infraction, I would have never chosen this action. (I wouldn't even have been allowed to take it since the auction would have been passed out in 4♠.) And since my case was a classic example of a SEWoG -and we want to keep it that way- the "unrelated to the infraction" should not refer to "wild or gambling".

On the other hand, I think that the link between serious error and the infraction should remain very strong. If a player makes a serious error that he simply couldn't have made without the infraction, it is related. I would make an exception for revokes, penalty cards and similar cases (also when the player would have been dummy without the infraction), since they are sufficiently unrelated. But judgement errors in bidding situations that only arose because of the infraction are clearly related to the infraction.

So, for me, this is a clear cut case. The 3♣ bid was clearly not a WoG of the kind "If it works, I win; if it doesn't work, I don't lose.". You may debate whether it was a serious error. That depends on what you think are "normal errors" for mrdct. But it occured in a situation that wouldn't have existed without the infraction. Therefore, it was related to the infraction, which means that there was no reason for a split score.

Rik

[Cascade]

I already discussed this with you briefly David.

I am not sure I realized that the doubler was offshape.

With good shape in a minimum balanced hand I think a double forcing to the three-level is marginal. In a different but in some ways similar auction I have seen marginal minimum valued doubles with the proper shape be ruled against. That seems right to me. If you are minimum some would consider pass and some of those choose pass so it must be a logical alternative.

With bad shape doubling with a balanced hand to me seems to be simply trying to take advantage of the unauthorized information.

Therefore I would remove the double and be inclined to issue a penalty. The offending side may be able to convince me that a penalty is too harsh or I have some leniency for an inexperienced player.

Initially I thought running from penalty double when you are void was not likely to be a serious error. However given the takeout double and the poor quality of your club suit and that you have to bid one level higher I am now inclined to agree that 3♣ was an error. Although given that this player is willing to make an offshape double perhaps 3=4=3=3 or the like was possible.

Clearly though running from 2♠ Doubled is related to the infraction. You are only running because the double has been made.

I don't think I could be persuaded to rule wild or gambling but I can see how someone might argue that bidding a king-empty suit that has already been bid by and opponent could be considered wild or gambling. I am not sure where the boundary is between wild and gambling and serious error.

Too often in these cases the offenders are treated harshly and the non-offenders treated leniently. Here the offenders have the result they would have obtained with the infraction. On the other hand the non-offenders have the worst of it. This culture needs to change so that there is a disincentive to the offending side from taking advantage of the unauthorized information.

[Codo]

Trinidad, on 2012-February-02, 02:46, said:

On the other hand, I think that the link between serious error and the infraction should remain very strong. If a player makes a serious error that he simply couldn't have made without the infraction, it is related. I would make an exception for revokes, penalty cards and similar cases (also when the player would have been dummy without the infraction), since they are sufficiently unrelated. But judgement errors in bidding situations that only arose because of the infraction are clearly related to the infraction.

So, for me, this is a clear cut case. The 3♣ bid was clearly not a WoG of the kind "If it works, I win; if it doesn't work, I don't lose.". You may debate whether it was a serious error. That depends on what you think are "normal errors" for mrdct. But it occured in a situation that wouldn't have existed without the infraction. Therefore, it was related to the infraction, which means that there was no reason for a split score.

Rik

But if you take the borderline there, nearly nobody can be penaliszed for a "double shot" anymore. They just made a "judgement error". Aren't we taking a good postion too far (as much leeway for the non-offending side), if we allow bids like 3 Club here to be without any consequence? If this is not "wild or gambling", which bid -besides jumps- would qualify?