[nige1]

barmar in Fundamentals thread, on Sep 4 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

David is correct.  Adam's simple rule, while it sounds fair at first glance, is what leads to the infamous "double shot" problem that we frequently face.  Once a player commits an infraction, the opponents then have almost free reign to take wild risks; if it doesn't work out, they get the director to cancel the bad result because of the infraction.

The double-shot rule severely penalizes the victim of an infraction, often adding insult to injury, and sometimes preventing infractions from being reported.

Typically, a player, who knows the "double-shot" rule, is discouraged from calling the director when his expert opponent commits an infraction because the director may judge that a subsequent action by the victim is "wild and gambling" or egregiously bad. It inhibits him from any risky action (for example jumping to a slam) even if he would otherwise take that action, without thought. Notice that, the poor victim is unsure that opponents have committed an infraction or that the director will recognize it as such; so all this worry and pussy-footing around may be for nothing.

An example of another problem with this rule. An expert pair misexplain a bid. As a result their average opponents double a non-vulnerable part-score. In the course of play, the victims realise that, normally they would reach a making vulnerable grand-slam. They defeat the partscore by a couple of tricks but cease to take any interest in the defence, believing that another undertrick will hardly affect their result. The director disabuses them, depriving them of full redress because of their gross error in defence.

The "protect yourself" rule also penalises the victim of an infraction and often adds insult to injury. Why should the victim of an infraction have to take special extra measures to merit redress?

A typical example. An opponent makes an unalerted bid. Most partnerships define the bid as a transfer. If so it is alertable. And if it is a transfer, you want to double for the lead. You are in a Morton's fork dilemma ...

• If you don't ask, then you fail to protect yourself and may lose redress.
  
• If you do ask and the bid turns out to be natural, then your predicament is worse. Partner is in receipt of unauthorised information and must lean over backwards to avoid any action so-suggested, if there is a logical alternative.

[helene_t]

I don't understand that.

If opps provide MI and I think I can make 7NT, I just bid 7NT, and I do report the MI.

If 7NT makes, fine. The director won't take my good result away regardless of it being wild and gambling.

If 7NT goes down, well I may have to live with my bad result because my bid was wild, but I would have to live with it also if I hadn't reported the MI.

wtp?

[nige1]

helene_t, on Sep 24 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

I don't understand that. If opps provide MI and I think I can make 7NT, I just bid 7NT, and I do report the MI. If 7NT makes, fine. The director won't take my good result away regardless of it being wild and gambling. If 7NT goes down, well I may have to live with my bad result because my bid was wild, but I would have to live with it also if I hadn't reported the MI. wtp?

In helene_t's example, the problem arises because 7N is your normal action; but you fear that a director may judge it to be "wild and gambling". Now...

• Given correct information rather than misinformation, you might not bid 7N. In an extreme example, with correct information, 7N is impossible rather than just wild and gambling. Nevertheless, you trust opponent's explanation and bid 7N. Now opponent's MI directly caused damage to you. But the law refuses you full redress.
  
• Suppose, however, that you strongly suspect MI. Frightened of a "wild and gambling" judgement that deprives you of redress, you eschew the 7N bid that you favour. It turns out that (i) opponent's explanation was correct (ii) 7N makes. Now, it is the law, rather than your opponents that has inflicted damage on you.

Anyway, the so-called "double-shot" is a chimaera. Suppose that the double-shot rule were dropped. You would be a fool to take a "wild and gambling" action, simply relying on a favourable ruling if it were unsuccessful. How can you be sure that opponents have broken the law? Even if you're sure, there is no guarantee that the director will agree with you.

[barmar]

We need rules like this to prevent people from truly trying to take undue advantage from an error by the opponents. You can't live your life paranoid that a director will make a bad ruling against you based on it. Do what you think is right, and in most cases you won't be punished.

It's like always driving 10 MPH under the speed limit, because you're worried that a cop's radar might not be calibrated well and add 10 MPH to your speed.

[nige1]

barmar, on Sep 25 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

It's like always driving 10 MPH under the speed limit, because you're worried that a cop's radar might not be calibrated well and add 10 MPH to your speed.

Unfortunately a director cannot rely on a device like a radar-gun when he suspects a bridge-player of "speeding". But there's no need for analogy here. In real-life ruling/appeal/commentry books there are cases where legal-experts differ about whether an action was "wild and gambling". And others with no consensus as to whether an error was "egregious". Disagreements about calls will come as no surprise to those who enjoy magazine bidding competitions. Often, one expert judges an action to be automatic that another regards as insane. Amusingly, a few decades ago, there were panelists like Swinnerton-Dyer, whose calls were then deemed completely off-track, but would nowadays be considered middle-of-the-road.