[Cascade]

Hand One - weak 1NT

---

Hand Two - weak two

---

These two hands occurred at the table yesterday. In both cases EW were a weakish partnership in a weak field playing against one of the stronger pairs.

1. What actions do you seriously consider?

2. What action do you take?

3. On one hand the player bid and on the other the player did not bid (actually different players but similar standard). Which is which do you think? Obviously the issue is that on one hand there was UI and on the other not.

I am interested in trying to get a handle on the threshold for logical alternatives. If some players pass either one of these then we are at least getting close to pass being a logical alternative.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2015-June-27, 16:49, said:

Hand One - weak 1NT

---

Hand Two - weak two
These two hands occurred at the table yesterday. In both cases EW were a weakish partnership in a weak field playing against one of the stronger pairs.
1. What actions do you seriously consider?
2. What action do you take?
3. On one hand the player bid and on the other the player did not bid (actually different players but similar standard). Which is which do you think? Obviously the issue is that on one hand there was UI and on the other not.
I am interested in trying to get a handle on the threshold for logical alternatives. If some players pass either one of these then we are at least getting close to pass being a logical alternative.

---

IMO

• 2♥ = 10, Pass = 9. Double = 6. All are LAs. The argument for pass is that if you bid opponents may find a ♠ fit.
• 2♠ = 10, Pass = 8. Double = 7. All are LAs
• I might conceivably pass on the first hand but would bid on the second.

[WesleyC]

Hand 1. Double and 2H are both reasonable. Hard to choose between them without more knowledge of our agreements. Definitely not passing.

Hand 2. 2S and Double are worth consideration but I would usually just bid 2S. At other colours I might consider pass, but not NV/NV.

[Vampyr]

On the first hand I do not consider passing to be a LA; in fact I would have opened. The auction has timed well for me now though, as I can show ♣ +major and values sufficient to come In over a weak NT. if I didn't have this I would make a bid to show ♥ or ♥+. I find Nigel's argument above rather pessimistic.

On the second, I think that passing is a LA, but I do not have strong feelings about it.

I think that the only way to decide on LAs is to estimate using the approximate numerical values your RA has chosen, deciding against your desired action if you think it is close. Some people think that this is not properly observing Law 73C, but I disagree. You don't want to make a call when there are less-suggested LAs, but you don't want to go too far either.

[gordontd]

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking with the third question. Do you want to know on which hand we would be more likely to bid, or on which hand a player with UI bid? And since the two players in question were different it all seems a bit meaningless.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-June-28, 02:48, said:

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking with the third question. Do you want to know on which had we would be more likely to bid, or on which hand a player with UI bid? And since the two players in question were different it all seems a bit meaningless.

Yeah, I had no idea either; I just answered at random because it was necessary to answer it to vote in the poll at all.

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2015-June-28, 02:48, said:

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking with the third question. Do you want to know on which had we would be more likely to bid, or on which hand a player with UI bid? And since the two players in question were different it all seems a bit meaningless.

Its just a guess I suppose. I was trying to get some idea of how good I was at picking a second hand where someone might bid. If the poll was very one-sided then I would think that action was more likely in that situation than the other.

Essentially I think for weak players pass will very often be a logical alternative. When I run classes for example and pose problems there are often a few people passing --- "I only had 10 points" or something --- when others might think action is clear cut.

[sanst]

I would probably have opened both hands at the 2-level, the first even with 1♥. But then, I'm living in a country where Muiderberg (5M and 4+m) is almost standard. But when I've passed in the first seat, why would I bid now with a passed partner?

[RMB1]

+1 to what gordonTD said (twice )

In what sense is two UI problems a 'Simple Rulings' ?

If you allowed a "don't know" / "don't understand" answer to the third question, you might get more answers to the first two.

[gnasher]

I bid 2♥ and 2♠, and don't consider anything else, whether seriously or otherwise.

2♥ on the first is more clearcut than 2♠ on the second, in that I can imagine someone choosing some other action on the second.

[StevenG]

Cascade, on 2015-June-28, 04:53, said:

Essentially I think for weak players pass will very often be a logical alternative. When I run classes for example and pose problems there are often a few people passing --- "I only had 10 points" or something --- when others might think action is clear cut.

Weak players often misbid.
Therefore misbids become LAs for weak players.
Therefore a normal bid can be ruled against if the player is weak.

I really dislike that logic.

[WesleyC]

StevenG, on 2015-June-28, 09:54, said:

Weak players often misbid.
Therefore misbids become LAs for weak players.
Therefore a normal bid can be ruled against if the player is weak.

I really dislike that logic.

A logical alternative is specifically defined as: an action 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.

Players with a different skill level will often have different judgement. A logical alternative for stronger player, might not be a logical alternative for a weaker player and vice-versa.

[Cascade]

StevenG, on 2015-June-28, 09:54, said:

Weak players often misbid.
Therefore misbids become LAs for weak players.
Therefore a normal bid can be ruled against if the player is weak.

I really dislike that logic.

Maybe but it is the way the law is written. Logical alternatives are determined based on the "class of player". If the player belongs to a class that frequently make poor choices then those poor choices determine the logical alternatives.

The alternative also involves logic which I dislike.

The player is weak.
The player has UI.
Determine LAs based on the weak player playing perfectly.
Therefore the weak player never makes an inferior choice in the ruling.

Now the weak player conveys UI and their LAs are restricted to and determined by them making sound decisions.

So their opponents have no benefit from their propensity to make mistakes.

[Cascade]

RMB1, on 2015-June-28, 07:31, said:

+1 to what gordonTD said (twice )

In what sense is two UI problems a 'Simple Rulings' ?

If you allowed a "don't know" / "don't understand" answer to the third question, you might get more answers to the first two.

Ok I have removed the third question from the poll.

The results were 7:5 in favour of bidding occurring on the heart overcall hand rather than the spade overcall hand.

"Simple" in the sense of just determine the logical alternatives, accept the UI could demonstrably suggest the action, bidding in this case --- "I have values type UI" --- and rule against any logical alternative that happened to have been chosen. Seems straight forward to me. Am I missing something?

As I said the third poll was designed for my own benefit to just check that I had not missed the mark. On one of these hands the partner indicated significant interest in bidding but passed and their partner then acted. On the other a player who I judged was in the same "class of players" without any unauthorised information passed. This concurred with my experience that this "class of players" relatively frequently pass in situations where I might consider action --- and I consider myself relatively conservative if the balancing seat. Not sure how many others would balance but for example on the same day I passed out 1♠, as a passed hand with a 3=4=4=2 8 count, two bullets (not the spade ace), where I imagine some might double. (Can't remember the vulnerability but I can look it up if someone thinks its relevant).

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2015-June-28, 10:32, said:

Ok I have removed the third question from the poll.

The results were 7:5 in favour of bidding occurring on the heart overcall hand rather than the spade overcall hand.

I am not sure that people knew what they were voting on.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2015-June-28, 09:40, said:

2♥ on the first is more clearcut than 2♠ on the second, in that I can imagine someone choosing some other action on the second.

Were you trying to ask something like this in the third question? If so, I expect you would have found everyone agreeing with Andy.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2015-June-28, 11:53, said:

Were you trying to ask something like this in the third question? If so, I expect you would have found everyone agreeing with Andy.

Something like that but I didn't want a clear cut poll unless there was a clear disparity between the two situations. I thought it was close which one some one might act on and a similar player not act on. I was trying to get a gauge on that for no purpose other than to know that I had picked a reasonable example.

I essentially got told there were no logical alternatives to action on the offending hand. My thought was that I bet I could go through the hands and find some loosely similar situation where some weaker player or other did not act on a hand where many might think it is clear to act. If so then I think it is at least close, and maybe clear cut, that by the wording in the laws that passing is a logical alternative in these situations should you have unauthorised information.

I was lazy and did not go through all the hands and pick the best one, I just started from some point where I happened to be looking and kept looking until I found one. It did not take me many hands, which might or might not be relevant from a bigger sample --- the unbiased sample of one problem.

Anyone I think I got enough information from the poll and criticism to determine that my example was in the right ball park.

[lamford]

I have now seen that the two hands are linked, so my criticism of having two hands in one thread does not apply. I think it is automatic to bid on both, but some beginners would pass on either of them at random. The first is mandatory to bid. I prefer 2C showing clubs and a major by a passed hand, but anything showing hearts and another is fine too.

[akwoo]

I actually think passing is more worth considering on the first hand, because of the vulnerability. If I can make 2♥, I also have a decent chance of getting the magical (at MPs) +200 for down 2. I would consider doubling if the opponents had a bad runout system, meaning one where I have a good chance of getting 2 more bids in before they settle in 2♠.

I would bid on the second even if I wasn't a passed hand.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2015-June-29, 04:04, said:

I would consider doubling if the opponents had a bad runout system

And had it on their CC, or you couldn't find out.