[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-October-22, 02:01, said:

If those were my methods, I'd raise to 4NT rather than bidding 4♥. I don't think this is a significant disincentive to bidding.

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that. He (or she, I have no idea who the opponents were) was clearly considering cueing for diamonds, or bidding 4♦, last time. In my view, that is not carefully avoiding taking any advantage from the UI. 4♥ is also a puppet to 6♦ in this partnership's methods of using a slow 3NT instead of a serious or non-serious 3NT to express doubt.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 18:39, said:

Now I do not expect the AC to do this research, but I do expect them to poll a significant number of players. Just this forum tells us that Pass is an LA, even though several experts think it is not.

This forum has 8 emphatic bidders, 1 bidder who considered pass and 1 passer who considered it close. I don't think this tells us that pass is an LA, although it doesn't mean it isn't either. This is a situation which requires extremely careful selection of peers. Many of the pollees in this thread - and the winners of the A final to whom you referred - are expert players, but we don't know who the pair at the table was. We do know that they are playing a somewhat unusual system, which may have negative inferences that we are not aware of and that the South hand has made a 3NT call which I suspect few of these expert pollees would have chosen. For many players it may even be that the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest bidding on, being consistent with 3 decent spades, no heart stop, good clubs and no particular suitability for a diamond contract.

The news that North chose an action which does not permit getting out in 4NT (I think all the pollees assumed playing 4NT was an option over their try) is the strongest evidence I have seen that passing was an LA, but I think we need all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

[gwnn]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 03:54, said:

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that. He (or she, I have no idea who the opponents were) was clearly considering cueing for diamonds, or bidding 4♦, last time. In my view, that is not carefully avoiding taking any advantage from the UI. 4♥ is also a puppet to 6[di} in this partnership's methods of using a slow 3NT instead of a serious or non-serious 3NT to express doubt.

Everyone made it clear that for them passing is not an LA, so why are you suggesting that people make a non-LA?

edit: cross-posted, sorry c_corgi, and I didn't see there were any passers here

edit2: I don't see why 3♠ would imply a slam try barring any special agreements. Normally showing 5 spades, 4+ diamonds and GF is also not necessarily a slam try, but just a search for the best game.

[lamford]

gwnn, on 2012-October-22, 03:58, said:

Everyone made it clear that for them passing is not an LA, so why are you suggesting that people make a non-LA?

edit: cross-posted, sorry c_corgi, and I didn't see there were any passers here

edit2: I don't see why 3♠ would imply a slam try barring any special agreements. Normally showing 5 spades, 4+ diamonds and GF is also not necessarily a slam try, but just a search for the best game.

paulg and nigel_k considered pass an LA, and Trinidad would select it at matchpoints. campboy did not choose a camp. Nigel_K "slightly prefers 4H". Most do not consider Pass an LA, say 8 people.

I think we can tell from the 3NT bid that partner is not the sharpest pencil in the box, and moving on is based on a mistrust of the meaning of 3NT and the fact that partner was thinking of cueing for diamonds. Their auction showed 4 spades and 5+ diamonds, not as you state, so I suggest you re-read the OP. Partner will never have 4 spades on this sequence so was not thinking of bidding 4 spades.

I agree with c_corgi that we need more information from the AC or TD; perhaps they will post on here.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 18:39, said:

Excuse the poor tabbing (and advice on how to tab correctly would be gratefully received).

You can get it to work by inserting the table as a code snippet ([code][/code]), though if you do this you won't be able to use suit symbols in it.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 03:54, said:

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that.

That doesn't make 4NT illegal. If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

You seem to be arguing a point that nearly everyone agrees with: if pass is an LA, he is required to choose that. The key question, however, is whether pass is an LA.

In my view, it's not. After your original post, I believed that the LAs were 4♥ and 4NT. After you subsequently told us that 4♥ wouldn't allow us to stop in 4NT, that made 4♥ not an LA. That leaves one LA, which is 4NT.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-22, 04:27

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 18:39, said:

It is irrelevant that some eminent people such as gnasher and wank think it is automatic to move. I am told that both winners of the A final at Stratford would choose Pass.

Why is it irrelevant what gnasher & wank think, but relevant what (you say) two other players think?

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 18:39, said:

The AC should poll at least 10 players of comparable standard,

I do not know where you find this law or regulation, nor do I think it would be a good one.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-October-22, 04:20, said:

So what? If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

In my view, it's not.

When I am polled about an LA, I often think there is only one LA. However, when I learn that the requisite minimum would choose a different call, I accept that there is more than one LA. On this hand the LAs are Pass, 4D, 4H and 4NT. They all fulfill the criteria that a significant number would consider the bid and at least some would select it. Both here and those polled at Stratford. I originally thought as you did, but as soon as I found a "significant number of peers" selecting Pass, I immediately rethought the problem. I totally agree 4H is the best bid without the UI. But I am also certain that Pass is an LA under the definition of it. Now it may be that that definition is wrong, and the correct figure is the old 30%. But we are stuck with the new figure which I understand is much lower.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-21, 03:09, said:

The winners of the pairs here both passed when polled. Neither they nor I were involved with the hand.

They were not polled - at least not by the TDs or AC. One of them was asked to be an appeals consultant, and the other was sitting at the same table so presumably contributed to the discussion. I do not know what they said, except that the consultation took some time and the appellant decided to appeal. It is because we do not know what either party says in these consultations that ACs are not supposed to be told, nor to take into account, whether or not an appeals advisor has been consulted.

It sounds as though you know a lot more about this than any TDs or AC members.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-October-22, 04:35, said:

Why is it irrelevant what gnasher & wank think, but relevant what (you say) two other players think?

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious. And "less relevant" would have been better. I was told by the appellant that the two other players consulted would have passed, so that is "third-hand" and of less value. I presume the TDs polled among themselves and did not consider Pass an LA either. You do not think it is right to poll 10 or so players. I am aware that there is no regulation on how to establish what peers would do, and that is my opinion. I can see no other way to establish what a significant number of the player's peers would consider.

And I certainly do not know more about it than the AC or TDs. Less in fact; I did not know that one of the two I mentioned had been an appeals consultant. And, in this example, "what they said" would have been the auction with the BIT. "Res ipsa loquitur" as they say in Eboracum.

I only know what I was told by the appellant, and made it clear earlier that the facts were not verified. If you have the AC form, you can clarify or correct any wrong statements on here.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 04:48, said:

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious.

You cannot have a "some" without having a class of players "of whom...". If they belong in that class of players, then they are not irrelevant.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 04:48, said:

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious.

Yes, but how many the many are is relevant. You also need "a significant proportion" to seriously consider pass, and whether four players who considered pass is a significant proportion depends on how many it's out of.

FWIW I would not consider passing either.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-October-22, 04:20, said:

That doesn't make 4NT illegal. If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

That is debatable as well. Law 16B says: "<snip> the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."
This does not remove the obligation under 73C to "carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI".
If Law 16B said (as I think it should say): "<snip> the partner must choose from among logical alternatives one that could not demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.", then you would be right, if 4NT was the only LA.
We know (from the UI) that all LAs other than Pass will get partner to bid 6D. Effectively they are bidding 6D for him.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-October-22, 05:10, said:

Yes, but how many the many are is relevant. You also need "a significant proportion" to seriously consider pass, and whether four players who considered pass is a significant proportion depends on how many it's out of.

FWIW I would not consider passing either.

Yes I agree that all opinions are relevant, and my choice of words was poor. The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA, they should be stating that they would always bid on, and would not consider anything else. Whether or not a bid is an LA depends on whether "some" would seriously consider it and select it, not whether the majority consider(s) it an LA.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 05:20, said:

...The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA...

I don't see why not: it is equivalent to saying: "If pass was an LA for this player, then I am not his peer and should not have been polled".

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2012-October-22, 05:27, said:

I don't see why not: it is equivalent to saying: "If pass was an LA for this player, then I am not his peer and should not have been polled".

Except he didn't pass. You might say "If someone bid this way so far then I am not his peer", however. They did not say that.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 04:48, said:

You do not think it is right to poll 10 or so players. I am aware that there is no regulation on how to establish what peers would do, and that is my opinion. I can see no other way to establish what a significant number of the player's peers would consider.

I do not think it wrong to poll 10 players, but I would regard it impractical to require it of ACs or TDs. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) you did this in the case at Brighton where you chaired an appeals committee for me, and I do not think you needed to, since it was so blindingly obvious that even one of the appellants had told me he agreed with the ruling.

There is also the question of who belongs to the "class of players" in question, and one might argue that the winners of the pairs do not. I think I am probably a pretty close match for the players, being (I think) of the same rank and experience, and playing the methods in question with all my most regular partners.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-22, 05:20, said:

The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA, they should be stating that they would always bid on, and would not consider anything else. Whether or not a bid is an LA depends on whether "some" would seriously consider it and select it, not whether the majority consider(s) it an LA.

You seem to think that none of us can have any idea how others would behave in a given situation. I do not think this is true, and would probably have to stop directing if I did.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-October-22, 05:33, said:

I do not think it wrong to poll 10 players, but I would regard it impractical to require it of ACs or TDs. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) you did this in the case at Brighton where you chaired an appeals committee for me, and I do not think you needed to, since it was so blindingly obvious that even one of the appellants had told me he agreed with the ruling.

There is also the question of who belongs to the "class of players" in question, and one might argue that the winners of the pairs do not. I think I am probably a pretty close match for the players, being (I think) of the same rank and experience, and playing the methods in question with all my most regular partners.

I agree it is not practical for the AC to poll any players at all - indeed I did not in the one I chaired; they are generally giving up some of their dinner break (or worse still, valuable drinking time) to conduct the appeal. If there is time, the TD should poll players of similar strength - ideally 10, but maybe 4 or 5 in practice. UI cases are the majority of appeals - over half I think of the AC booklets. Those polled can be told the methods and imagine they are playing them. This should be presented as evidence to the AC. Law 85 provides for the TD to "determine" the facts, and it is reasonable that this includes establishing the LAs.

I would agree that you would have been an ideal pollee (although I do not even know the side who broke tempo!), as would at least some of the other TDs. There was a long gap between the original ruling and the appeal result (the appeal held up play for nine minutes at the start of the final). If the TD had presented a poll to the AC stating that ten were polled and all ten moved on and only one seriously considered passing, then that would have reduced the time the AC needed to take. I personally think that retaining a deposit after a "cuddly" has advised the appellant to appeal is always wrong, and, if it happened in, say, the financial world would lead to a successful claim of negligent advice. It is only because the scale is so small that it does not matter much. However, it can only be bad for bridge to behave in this way.

My guess is that a poll would have produced something like seven bids and three passes. And I would have been a bidder. But the correct ruling was to adjust.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-October-22, 05:37, said:

You seem to think that none of us can have any idea how others would behave in a given situation. I do not think this is true, and would probably have to stop directing if I did.

If the TDs consult only among themselves, then they have to decide how others would act. The sample is otherwise not large enough. So, yes, you are right to think on behalf of others in that situation. Here those "polled" were asked what they would seriously consider and what they would bid. Enough answered so that they do not need to speak for someone else! For what it is worth, I polled five at Stratford. Three would have bid on and two would have passed. All five were in one of the finals - although with sadly dwindling numbers that is being damned with faint praise.