[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-January-09, 09:07, said:

We have not been given the EW hands, so how can we judge whether partner would or would not have bid? And I would certainly not making a WJO on AJTxxx at game all. It is a recipe for 1100 or more. Whatever the hands are, you are not in the ballpark at all on what constitutes a serious error. I suggest you re-read the White Book and compare with the example there.

I've said SEVERAL TIMES I know what the white book says but that I think the white book is absurd. A 643 hand with AJ10xxx, and a queen is an easy WJO for us. I was in no doubt that what I'd done WAS a serious error for me even if the white book did not consider it one.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-09, 09:49, said:

I've said SEVERAL TIMES I know what the white book says but that I think the white book is absurd. A 643 hand with AJ10xxx, and a queen is an easy WJO for us. I was in no doubt that what I'd done WAS a serious error for me even if the white book did not consider it one.

The phrase in the laws is "extremely serious error".

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2018-January-09, 10:44, said:

The phrase in the laws is "extremely serious error".

Yup, it is now.

Also am I right in thinking this is NOT ... relative to the standard of the player concerned ? it's an absolute standard of idiocy.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-09, 11:38, said:

Yup, it is now.

Also am I right in thinking this is NOT ... relative to the standard of the player concerned ? it's an absolute standard of idiocy.

Yes (and no)

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own
damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling
action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:...

There is no definition as to what an 'extremely serious error is' - so presumably it is up to the RA to issue guidelines for their TDs to implement - which takes us straight back to the White Book.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-09, 11:38, said:

Also am I right in thinking this is NOT ... relative to the standard of the player concerned ?

No, I don't think you are.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2018-January-09, 12:27, said:

No, I don't think you are.

Oh, so potentially if Brogeland and Mrs Lol make the same mistake, it can be an extremely serious error for him but not for her ?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-09, 13:01, said:

Oh, so potentially if Brogeland and Mrs Lol make the same mistake, it can be an extremely serious error for him but not for her ?

Not really. A serious error is something like revoking, ducking the setting trick in a slam, or ducking ridiculously. I repeat; the concept of failing to work out which ace partner might have drawing inferences from the auction would not be a serious error for Garozzo or Mrs Guggenheim. Your opinion on what an extremely serious error should be is completely irrelevant (for the purpose of ruling anyway), and, as a philosophical discussion, I don't think it is shared by anyone.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-January-10, 06:53, said:

Not really. A serious error is something like revoking, ducking the setting trick in a slam, or ducking ridiculously. I repeat; the concept of failing to work out which ace partner might have drawing inferences from the auction would not be a serious error for Garozzo or Mrs Guggenheim. Your opinion on what an extremely serious error should be is completely irrelevant (for the purpose of ruling anyway), and, as a philosophical discussion, I don't think it is shared by anyone.

I only responded like that because I was surprised what Gordon seemed to be implying

[weejonnie]

The bar for 'extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)' is set very high (even higher now 'extremely' has been added).

I don't know whether there has been much case law (I can't remember an appeal in ANY of the case books - ACBL/ EBU, which was made on the grounds that a ruling that a serious error had been made was incorrect).

For an 'expert' or higher, I think that failing to count trumps might be regarded as an ESE but nothing harder than that! In fact I suspect that most split scores will be based on 'gambling actions taken where an adjustment might be expected if it does not succeed'.

[sanst]

AFAIK the way serious errors are to be treated is based on the idea that it would lead to endless discussions if you do it Cyberyeti's way. In this case you didn't pick up your two aces and you consider that to be a serious error. I'm afraid I don't agree as do the other participants in this discussion.
But back to the original question. I've been taught to use these three criteria in a case like this:

• Is there an infraction?
  
• Are the opponents damaged?
  
• Is the damaged caused by the infraction?

The first two criteria are met, but the third is not. You're failure to pick up your two tricks has nothing to do with the (possible) use of the UI, so you're not entitled to a rectification. I can imagine a director changing NS result to 5♦+1, but I think a poll is necessary. With North's hand I for one would raise to slam if my partner is mad enough to jump to 5♦ with A, K and Q missing. South's action would make a serious discussion necessary afterwards, but that's not the point here.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2018-January-10, 15:54, said:

The bar for 'extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)' is set very high (even higher now 'extremely' has been added).

I believe the addition of "extremely" was for emphasis rather than to change the standard, at least as far as the EBU is concerned. The examples of "(extremely) serious errors" listed in the White Book did not change with the addition of the word "extremely" in 2017. I think it was added just to reinforce the notion (perhaps more prevalent in other countries without such examples to hand) that failing to find what is clearly the best line of play among alternatives does not meet the criteria.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2018-January-10, 16:27, said:

AFAIK the way serious errors are to be treated is based on the idea that it would lead to endless discussions if you do it Cyberyeti's way. In this case you didn't pick up your two aces and you consider that to be a serious error. I'm afraid I don't agree as do the other participants in this discussion.
But back to the original question. I've been taught to use these three criteria in a case like this:

• Is there an infraction?
  
• Are the opponents damaged?
  
• Is the damaged caused by the infraction?

The first two criteria are met, but the third is not. You're failure to pick up your two tricks has nothing to do with the (possible) use of the UI, so you're not entitled to a rectification. I can imagine a director changing NS result to 5♦+1, but I think a poll is necessary. With North's hand I for one would raise to slam if my partner is mad enough to jump to 5♦ with A, K and Q missing. South's action would make a serious discussion necessary afterwards, but that's not the point here.

I think you're slightly confusing what I was claiming.

I was never claiming 6♦-1 which is what the criteria you list there would represent.
I was claiming I should have signed for 5+1 because passing 5♦ is a LA to bidding 6

I made the serious error point because that might be a reason for denying me full redress, and I think it should but the law says that it shouldn't. This is the second recent case on these boards where I feel a player is good enough with a little thought, not to make a no gain play, but this doesn't deny redress.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2018-January-11, 07:40, said:

I believe the addition of "extremely" was for emphasis rather than to change the standard, at least as far as the EBU is concerned.

That's my understanding as well. They always meant for the bar to be high, and RA guidance usually followed this approach, but the old wording wasn't as clear about it. So they changed it to say what they meant.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-January-11, 09:35, said:

That's my understanding as well. They always meant for the bar to be high, and RA guidance usually followed this approach, but the old wording wasn't as clear about it. So they changed it to say what they meant.

LOL they may have achieved this, but they certainly didn't clarify their meaning with malice aforethought.