Gambling Actions (L-12)

The WBF released commentary and examples on the the new laws. In looking at the new laws and the examples, it struck me that the laws specify “gambling actions” in L12. My recollection (and not reliable these days) is that the laws previously specified “wild gambling action”.

Anyone have an old copy and know for certain?

There is a HUGE difference between “wild gambling actions” and gambling actions. HUGE. Virtually every normal game bid is a gambling action since the dictionary defines gambling as taking a chance or risk.

Also, example #6 needs to be removed or replaced.

This example is essentially a math exercise showing the work. Math is easy. Math has objective answers. The crux of this sort of issue is the subjective view of what constitutes “gambling”. (Besides, almost everything now from a legal standpoint.) That is what we need an example of, yet the text just stipulates that it happened.

The example does not even bother to explain who in the N/S pair bid 5. So I with hypothetically answer continued P-P-5. And 5 makes sense IF West actually has a 4 call. That would mean North has a good chance of being in spades and we have a good sac. Alas, partner held Jxx and the lack of total trumps is the reason so few tricks are available.

But now, I can spend my time arguing with a TD about my judgment. Mine is better, but they think they know better because they have the job. And the TD is likely bright enough to argue that East might have hitched with the minors. Or give me a hand or two where it would be a phantom. And now I have no c ase because there is such a low threshold for "gambling". Even if when all is said and done, it was 60% to bid 5 over a legit 4 they can rule me a risk-taker.

In any event, it is a silly example because if N/S believed 4 was UI, then 5 is a ridiculous decision.  If your side can make 5 and they are not allowed to bid 4, it is changed to the same score if you bid or pass.  Perhaps expecting a TD to understand that could be considered a wild gambling action?

Here is the deal: if they do not have one clear, real example of a gambling action that would be so adjudicated, then we not even need this law. Since the beginning of bridge no one has a good example?

In the state of Arizona, it is illegal for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub. I don't know if the donkey or the owner is punished. But there actually is ONE example to support this law over the last 90 years.

IMO, the prohibition against a gambling action is an affront to game theory. If the defense jumps offside, the receivers go deep and the QB tries for a big play. However, if you think that is wrong because “we always had these silly thoughts in bridge”, I can live with that.

However, setting the threshold for the non-offenders as “unrelated extremely serious error such as a revoke” for the play standard, but then something general and nonspecific - “gambling” - for bidding standard is an absurd contrast.

They keep tinkering with this stuff and it just gets more wobbly.  I really miss Edgar.