[lamford]

---

Hybrid scoring (60% IMPs, 40% BAM) Lead T♣ Table Result EW +200

This was a ruling and an appeal in the Lederer. It appears to just be a judgement issue as to whether Pass is an LA on East's third (corrected, sorry) turn. The players were of a high standard - the holders of the Lederer, and double winners of it. EW argued that double on the previous round could have been around 9-11, but East had significant extras. NS argued that the BIT by West made it easier to find that double. How would you rule?

And, on a more esoteric note, what is the plural of "second bite of the cherry"?

This post has been edited by lamford: 2012-October-01, 07:22

[gnasher]

I'll answer the second question first: "second bites of the cherries".

I think pass is a logical alternative, so I would adjust to 2♠ undoubled -1.

[wank]

pass is clearly a LA

[TimG]

I think many would consider pass, but few, if any, would choose pass.

[jillybean]

No screens in use?

[gordontd]

 jillybean, on 2012-September-30, 09:06, said:

No screens in use?

No, none.

[Quartic]

 lamford, on 2012-September-30, 06:07, said:

---

It appears to just be a judgement issue as to whether Pass is an LA on East's second turn.

Are you sure you mean East's second turn here? That double looks systemic to me. Did you mean third turn or second double instead?

[MickyB]

The N/S system looks fantastic, especially at this form of scoring. Is there more information anywhere?

[blackshoe]

second bites at the cherry.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-01, 06:00, said:

second bites at the cherry.

You can get four bites from one cherry?

[lamford]

 Quartic, on 2012-October-01, 02:28, said:

Are you sure you mean East's second turn here? That double looks systemic to me. Did you mean third turn or second double instead?

Sorry, corrected now. It would be odd to disallow a double before the UI!

[lamford]

 MickyB, on 2012-October-01, 03:07, said:

The N/S system looks fantastic, especially at this form of scoring. Is there more information anywhere?

Indeed, it should do well in the Lederer ...

[lamford]

 TimG, on 2012-September-30, 08:44, said:

I think many would consider pass, but few, if any, would choose pass.

I wondered about this. Everyone polled thought Pass was an LA, but I have not found any strong player that would pass without the UI or considers Pass the best bid. I would pass because I think the second double is not "carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI", in that partner can no longer have a 4-3-4-2 three-count. Perhaps another example of Law 16B failing where Law 73C is needed.

[MickyB]

 lamford, on 2012-October-01, 07:17, said:

I have not found any strong player that would pass without the UI or considers Pass the best bid.

The best player I've spoken to about the hand said he'd pass - although it was by written communication so I cannot vouch that he was sober!

[lamford]

 MickyB, on 2012-October-01, 07:21, said:

The best player I've spoken to about the hand said he'd pass - although it was by written communication so I cannot vouch that he was sober!

I just spoke to a former Lederer winner who would also pass - he says that East has shown his shape. It could easily be the case that 3X and 2S both drift one off on these cards. Partner did not bid when he would strain to do so at these colours. That was by verbal communication, and I can vouch that he was not sober as he never is.

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-01, 08:13, said:

Are you sure that this is the question? In that case it would be 'third bite of the cherry' and in general 'subsequent bite(s) of the cherry' but I think the point is there are many cherries and there are two bites taken of each. At least this is how I interpret the question: the point is not that East doubles again and again and again, with S presumably bidding spades again and again but that there are many of these situations where someone wants to take a second bite at that particular cherry.

I am finding this discussion at least as interesting as the main one of the thread. I see what you mean. Everyone in a situation such as this has their own cherry.

Quote

East has maybe a Q above minimum but it's an aceless hand with no extra distribution. To me it's a close call, it's not just that I could see myself pass.

I was consulted on the hand (not that I was considered a peer of the players involved, but I was available) and I always feel that the problem with being consulted is that you are pretty sure why. If time were no object (which of course it always is) it would be great to include the hand in a bidding competition. Then you would get untainted answers.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2012-October-01, 07:17, said:

I wondered about this. Everyone polled thought Pass was an LA, but I have not found any strong player that would pass without the UI or considers Pass the best bid. I would pass because I think the second double is not "carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI", in that partner can no longer have a 4-3-4-2 three-count. Perhaps another example of Law 16B failing where Law 73C is needed.

I don't think 73C is supposed to force you to do something stupid, just because you have UI. If there's only one LA, the fact that it's also suggested by the UI doesn't prohibit you from choosing it.

You seem to be saying that the part of the LA definition about "some number would choose" should be ignored if it gets rid of all the potential LAs other than the one suggested by the UI.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-01, 08:21, said:

I was consulted on the hand (not that I was considered a peer of the players involved, but I was available) and I always feel that the problem with being consulted is that you are pretty sure why. If time were no object (which of course it always is) it would be great to include the hand in a bidding competition. Then you would get untainted answers.

When I'm polled, I don't find it hard at all just to answer the question, without first trying to guess why I'm being asked it. I suppose it goes with being able to look at an unshuffled hand and not feeling the urge to attempt to reconstruct the play at the previous table.

The bigger problem with polling is that often the only people who can be asked are those who have already played the hand, and therefore know what the outcome was. That's why TDs often start by asking each other - we often won't have seen the hand already, and we generally have a good idea, based on experience, of what other players do.

I'm not sure that bidding competitions get untainted answers, though they may well be tainted in a different way.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2012-October-02, 02:44, said:

When I'm polled, I don't find it hard at all just to answer the question, without first trying to guess why I'm being asked it.

You may think so, but you're probably wrong. I've read many books and articles that explain how oblivious we are to the subconscious biases that go into practically all our decisions. For example, see Why Your Brain Is Irrational about Obama and Romney from this month's Scientific American.

[jallerton]

 gordontd, on 2012-October-02, 02:44, said:

When I'm polled, I don't find it hard at all just to answer the question, without first trying to guess why I'm being asked it. I suppose it goes with being able to look at an unshuffled hand and not feeling the urge to attempt to reconstruct the play at the previous table.

I agree.

 gordontd, on 2012-October-02, 02:44, said:

The bigger problem with polling is that often the only people who can be asked are those who have already played the hand, and therefore know what the outcome was. That's why TDs often start by asking each other - we often won't have seen the hand already, and we generally have a good idea, based on experience, of what other players do.

I don't see this as a big problem. When I am given a bidding problem, I base my answer on the hand and auction I am given. Even if I know all four hands, I will often come up with a "losing" answer. Like everyone else, I get decisions wrong at the table, so there's no reason to pretend otherwise when someone asks me what I would bid on a particular hand. Even people who always like to be right will tell you when they think it's close between several options; this information is very helpful to the TD in assessing the logical alternatives and/or possible hypothetical auctions which might lead to a weighted ruling. Polling other TDs is fine if the person polled is close to a potential peer of the player involved, but there's little point in asking a TD of average club standard a bidding problem to assess what the logical alternatives might be for, say, Geir Helgemo.