[pooltuna]

Bluejak it back to 3NT=

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-15, 08:48, said:

Exactly my point: doubling on such a hand does not automatically mean that you intend to bid at the 4-level, despite some people saying so.

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between "intending to bid 4♥" and "willing to bid 4♥ if needed"?

Phil makes a perfectly good argument: North did -quite obviously- not intend to bid at the four level when he doubled. But he had -in Phil's view, and mine- decided that if needed he was willing to bite the bullet and bid 4♥.

I can't come up with anything nice to say about the reasoning that if you don't jump to 4♥ in a nice and calm auction that you won't bid 4♥ in a preemptive auction. The nicest I can come up with is that it is flawed.

I have a hand for you:

---

What would you bid after RHO dealt and opened with 4♥? I think the majority would "accept the transfer to 4♠", and actually be relatively happy about it. There must have been worse hand with which they bid 4♠.

Now, assume that RHO opened 1♥. What would you bid now? I guess it is fair to assume that the majority would overcall 1♠. Furthermore, if they wouldn't need to, they certainly wouldn't bid game.

Does this mean that it is wrong to bid 4♠ when one is preempted? Of course not.

Rik

[barmar]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-14, 20:30, said:

Sort of - the problem is I don't understand what a 'logical altenative' is - in the example it's clear cut, but there are some much more murky examples (If partner hestiates over a 2H Weak Jump Overcall, can I re-open with a double with a 19 count void in hearts? Some of my peers passed).

It seems to be defined as 'would other players consider it' (different from actually doing it), hence the polls of players in the peer group etc in these threads. This seems very strange if my peer group is beginners like myself who routinely make errors in bidding or play. If your peer group was Meckstroth or whatever that makes much more sense.

LA is defined in Law 16B1b:

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Figuring out what the LAs are in any given situation is not always easy; often there isn't even a concensus in a post mortem forum like this one. When TDs have to make rulings, it's recommended that they poll players, to avoid personal biases (just because they might or might not consider an action doesn't mean it is or isn't an LA). Of course, when you're the player in receipt of UI, you don't have that luxury. You have to estimate it yourself.

[jdeegan]

I don't think you can reasonably force an eight trick hand to pass on this auction regardless of his partner's demeanor.

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2012-February-15, 12:35, said:

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between "intending to bid 4♥" and "willing to bid 4♥ if needed"?

No, it is easy. But the presumption of some people that no-one ever doubles with this sort of hand unless they are always willing to go to 4♥ I consider deeply flawed.

[sfi]

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?" The unanimous response was "No." There was discussion about double, 4C, and 4H (with 4H being the majority view), but pass was simply not an option given those conditions.

On the original hand 3NT will make barring a double dummy SA lead, so ruling 3NT-1 would seem extreme.

[gordontd]

 sfi, on 2012-February-16, 16:16, said:

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?"

I don't think this is the right question. I think you should ask what they call, and then, of those who selected double unprompted, ask what they do on the next round. "You double because your hand is worth a double and bid" is too leading.

[blackshoe]

Well, apparently he only gave the shape of the hand; the "double and bid" bit sounds like it was an attempt to describe the strength. I agree it might have been better to just give the whole hand.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-16, 10:18, said:

No, it is easy. But the presumption of some people that no-one ever doubles with this sort of hand unless they are always willing to go to 4♥ I consider deeply flawed.

But no-one ever doing it is not a criterion for determining whether an action is an LA. It is a fact that some people bid like monkeys. But that does not mean that bidding like a monkey is an LA.

An LA is not defined as "If you somewhere can find someone who would take this action, it is an LA". It is defined as "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.". So, you need significantly more people than "no-one" (not merely one) before pass is an LA.

Rik

[mrdct]

 sfi, on 2012-February-16, 16:16, said:

I conducted a small survey to determine whether pass is a logical alternative. The question was "Vul. vs NV, you hold a 1-5-2-5 hand. RHO bids 2S, you double because your hand is worth a double and bid, and RHO bids 3S. Pass, pass to you - could you have a hand that would pass here?" The unanimous response was "No." There was discussion about double, 4C, and 4H (with 4H being the majority view), but pass was simply not an option given those conditions.

On the original hand 3NT will make barring a double dummy SA lead, so ruling 3NT-1 would seem extreme.

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action, so your first question should be "what do you do over 2♠ constructive weak two with this hand red vs green?" and then you only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those chose double as their initial action. Moreover, the follow-up question shouldn't be "what do you bid?" it should be "what actions would you be giving serious contemplation to?".

As for the defence to 3NT, I don't think the ♠A lead is at all double-dummy given that partner has raised ♠ which gives West a known 9-card fit with his side entry with the ♣A so there is no cost in protecting against a stiff K or Q in either opponents' hands.

[sfi]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-16, 22:03, said:

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

That's my point - nobody could construct a hand where they would double the first time and pass the second time in this auction. Hence the rather unscientific conclusion is that if this person considered it a double and bid hand, then pass is not a LA on this auction.

[mrdct]

 sfi, on 2012-February-17, 02:13, said:

if this person considered it a double and bid hand, then pass is not a LA on this auction.

I'm quite sure that this player is of the standard where they bid their hands one bid at a time and would never think ahead about what they would do on the next round.

[richlp]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-16, 22:03, said:

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

I have never really understood why this should be so. Assuming that nobody would ever chose the call chosen at the table, does that really mean you can't take a poll at all? Does it mean that you substitute the opinion of the AC - the members of which, by this definition, are also not peers of the player involved?

In virtually every Bridge World Master Solver's set (and I assume this to be true in any equivalent publication with a large enough panel) there is at least one problem where a particular answer is selected by only one panelist. Does that imply a total lack of peers for an AC to poll?

 mrdct, on 2012-February-16, 22:03, said:

so your first question should be "what do you do over 2♠ constructive weak two with this hand red vs green?" and then you only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those chose double as their initial action.

Obviously I think this is far too restrictive. I think you should also include in your poll those who seriously considered the original action.

 mrdct, on 2012-February-16, 22:03, said:

Moreover, the follow-up question shouldn't be "what do you bid?" it should be "what actions would you be giving serious contemplation to?".

"and which would you choose" should also be part of the question, shouldn't it?

[mrdct]

 richlp, on 2012-February-17, 13:49, said:

"and which would you choose" should also be part of the question, shouldn't it?

No. The definition of LA is things that you would give serious contemplation to doing, not the actual choice you make.

[barmar]

 mrdct, on 2012-February-17, 14:21, said:

No. The definition of LA is things that you would give serious contemplation to doing, not the actual choice you make.

It includes both. A significant number of have to consider it, and some have to choose it. So when you poll, you need to ask the pollee what actions he's choosing from, and which he finally chooses.

[barmar]

 richlp, on 2012-February-17, 13:49, said:

In virtually every Bridge World Master Solver's set (and I assume this to be true in any equivalent publication with a large enough panel) there is at least one problem where a particular answer is selected by only one panelist. Does that imply a total lack of peers for an AC to poll?

Of course not, you're putting the cart before the horse. You poll peers to get the LAs, you don't determine whether someone is a peer based on their answer to the poll.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

 richlp, on 2012-February-17, 13:49, said:

I have never really understood why this should be so. Assuming that nobody would ever chose the call chosen at the table, does that really mean you can't take a poll at all? Does it mean that you substitute the opinion of the AC - the members of which, by this definition, are also not peers of the player involved?

There is a thread elsewhere on the forums where somebody has done something palpably insane first time round (2♥-X-P-2N leb rather than 2♠ on ♠KQJxx and flat small cards), serious question, what do you do if trying to poll on subsequent action when somebody's already done something that ludicrous (with no excuse of pulling the wrong card or similar).

[bluejak]

The idea that polls should be limited to people who would have chosen the earlier action is often impractical and therefore flawed.

The idea of polls is to make the decision process better for a TD by widening the group of people providing input into the bridge judgement part of the decision. Refusing to do so because you cannot find people who agree with the earlier decision means that the TD has to use his own bridge judgement solely which, if he personally would not take the action, seems a very poor idea.

One of the advantages of good players is that their experience and knowledge often gives them an insight into what other players will do, so polling them is useful even when it concerns actions they would not have taken themselves.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 19:56, said:

The idea that polls should be limited to people who would have chosen the earlier action is often impractical and therefore flawed.

The idea of polls is to make the decision process better for a TD by widening the group of people providing input into the bridge judgement part of the decision. Refusing to do so because you cannot find people who agree with the earlier decision means that the TD has to use his own bridge judgement solely which, if he personally would not take the action, seems a very poor idea.

One of the advantages of good players is that their experience and knowledge often gives them an insight into what other players will do, so polling them is useful even when it concerns actions they would not have taken themselves.

These thoughts are quite accurate in describing the type of poll commonly used at the club-level by a director seeking advice of experienced players. It is consultation ---useful in coming to a decision.

Those of us who might be on an AC at a tournament would be our own consultants, but should consider the results of any poll of the other kind: where players of equivalent experience and methods state whether they would consider a certain action and/or actually take that action.

Of course, it is unlikely to get a "peer" poll at the club which will come up with the numbers to determine a L.A.

Don't get hung up on the term "poll", which can apply to either a consultation with experienced players or to a poll of peers. Both can be useful; one might not be possible in the given situation.