[blackshoe]

Okay, I've edited that entry in the forum abbreviations to include the parenthetical expression that's in the laws - and which, as has been pointed out, applies only to "serious error".

[Cascade]

East appears to be unlikely to hold four spades or four hearts this suggests in most systems he will have four clubs given the 1c opening.

In addition South bid 3c in a live auction with a four count and took another free bid after just a simple raise.

To me these are extreme actions I think they are serious errors and wild or gambling. I don't think such extreme action is protected by law and I don't think it should be.

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2014-June-22, 04:54, said:

To me these are extreme actions I think they are serious errors and wild or gambling. I don't think such extreme action is protected by law and I don't think it should be.

If the actions are wild, or gambling, they not "protected by law". If they are "serious errors", then it depends on whether the error is related to the infraction. But I'm sure you know all that already.

What's the difference between "wild" and "gambling"? To me, it's one of deliberation - a gambling action is taken knowingly — "I'm not sure whether this will work or not, I'll give it a try". A wild action is one that makes no sense whatsoever — "I have no idea why I bid that!"

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-June-22, 05:05, said:

If the actions are wild, or gambling, they not "protected by law". If they are "serious errors", then it depends on whether the error is related to the infraction. But I'm sure you know all that already. What's the difference between "wild" and "gambling"? To me, it's one of deliberation - a gambling action is taken knowingly — "I'm not sure whether this will work or not, I'll give it a try". A wild action is one that makes no sense whatsoever — "I have no idea why I bid that!"

TFLB L12C1b said:

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 offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

Whether South perpetrated a SEWOG is a matter of judgement but we're told that in order to qualify, an error must be quite bad. Some contributors to IBLF appear to hold error-prone players to their own frightenly high super-expert standards

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2014-June-23, 11:41, said:

Whether South is perpetrated a SEWOG is a matter of judgement but we're told that in order to qualify, an error must be seriously bad.

No, we are told that it must either be seriously bad (and unrelated to the infraction), or be wild, or be gambling. Both 3C & 5C strike me as wild bids.

[nige1]

 gordontd, on 2014-June-23, 11:56, said:

No, we are told that it must either be seriously bad (and unrelated to the infraction), or be wild, or be gambling. Both 3C & 5C strike me as wild bids.

Whenever there's a possibility that your opponents are guilty of an infraction that might damage you, Bridge-law goes out of its way to hobble you further, exacerbating potential damage:

• You are meant to "protect yourself" when that often implies imposing UI constraints on partner's actions.
• You must try to guess what actions a director might judge to be SEWOGs, so that you can avoid them, even when, for your partnership, such actions would be normal.

A bidding quiz often provides examples of a call, advocated by a partnership, but regarded as too dangerous by other pollees. (For example, locals used to regard the weak two as insane, especially when vulnerable).

These legal fetters become especially irksome when you refrain from (what you regard as) automatic action that probably would succeed but it turns out that opponents are innocent of law-breaking.

IMO such rulles are unfair, add no value, and should be dropped.

[barmar]

It's not holding someone to expert standards to consider bidding at the 5 level with nothing except KJTxx in a suit that an opponent has bid naturally to be off the wall. 3♣ was merely questionable, but 5♣ is crazy. The way he tried to justify it based on the MI just doesn't hold muster.