[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-July-22, 08:22, said:

I could have said "In this instance..." to prevent people imagining I was talking about a different set of circumstances.

Your statement was still incorrect. In this example it is woefully inadequate to just give the auction. When I asked David Bakhshi his opinion on 5S, his first question was "what is double?". Is it cards, or is it just penalties? He would have bid 5S if it was the former. He also asked what Pass would have meant by East.

Even if you intended to write: "To determine LAs all we need to know in this instance is the auction (without hesitations)," then I completely disagree.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2016-July-22, 10:53, said:

Your statement was still incorrect. In this example it is woefully inadequate to just give the auction. When I asked David Bakhshi his opinion on 5S, his first question was "what is double?". Is it cards, or is it just penalties? He would have bid 5S if it was the former. He also asked what Pass would have meant by East.

Even if you intended to write: "To determine LAs all we need to know in this instance is the auction (without hesitations)," then I completely disagree.

We were already told in the original post "There was no agreement on the meaning of double and presumably was intended as penalties" and it seems to me that if there was more relevant information you would have told us. Pretty pointless then to ask about a call not made, and not necessary to answer the poll - after all players make decisions with incomplete agreements and information all the time, and 29 people have managed to answer the poll on Bridgewinners without asking that question. Or should we discount all their answers?

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2016-July-22, 11:28, said:

We were already told in the original post "There was no agreement on the meaning of double and presumably was intended as penalties" and it seems to me that if there was more relevant information you would have told us. Pretty pointless then to ask about a call not made, and not necessary to answer the poll - after all players make decisions with incomplete agreements and information all the time, and 29 people have managed to answer the poll on Bridgewinners without asking that question. Or should we discount all their answers?

The fact that there's no specific agreement about the meaning of double is relevant in determining the LAs.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2016-July-22, 23:07, said:

The fact that there's no specific agreement about the meaning of double is relevant in determining the LAs.

Yes, and it's part of the original information we were given.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-July-22, 11:28, said:

We were already told in the original post "There was no agreement on the meaning of double and presumably was intended as penalties" and it seems to me that if there was more relevant information you would have told us. Pretty pointless then to ask about a call not made, and not necessary to answer the poll - after all players make decisions with incomplete agreements and information all the time, and 29 people have managed to answer the poll on Bridgewinners without asking that question. Or should we discount all their answers?

Then we are talking at cross purposes. I think the pollees should be told "there was no agreement on the meaning of double and presumably was intended as penalties." You wrote: "To determine LAs all we need to know (in this instance) is the auction (without hesitations)."

[lamford]

 ggwhiz, on 2016-July-22, 08:15, said:

I put this up as a poll on bridgewinners and so far have 15 bidders (2 for 6♣) and 13 passers.

Wow! If I ever need a poll of my peers I guess I insist on (at least) borderline criminally insane types. This is a pretty good advertisement for polling instead of the Director using their own bridge judgement.

I could not find the thread on bridgewinners. Can you provide a link, please? I found it now, and I see there is a majority for Pass. The TD apparently consulted, and it would be nice to know whether he asked the pollees what calls other than 5S they seriously considered, and I think his ruling should have indicated the result of that poll and how many people were polled. Certainly the English Internationals present whom I spoke to (Bell and Bakhshi) had not been polled, and they were at least as strong as the 5S bidder. One was on the putative AC so could not give his opinion. The initial ruling, in my opinion, should have been to disallow 5S, which I think is the right call by the way. I did not appeal partly because I think one should always be allowed 10 seconds when the bidding reaches you at the five level on the first round of the auction. But that is an issue for changing law or regulation (and no, blackshoe, no need to move the thread!). However, the 5S bid is hardly carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. (my emphasis)

[RMB1]

 lamford, on 2016-July-23, 04:47, said:

I could not find the thread on bridgewinners. Can you provide a link, please.

link

On Bridge Winners : Bidding Problem : see all

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2016-July-23, 05:04, said:

link

On Bridge Winners : Bidding Problem : see all

Thanks Robin, but I did eventually find it.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2016-July-23, 04:47, said:

I… no, blackshoe, no need to move the thread! …

Wasn't planning to.