L.A. or not ?

[bali 2]

David, thank you for your information about Capitals...but I have not got your opinion on the topic :(

 

More on this subject :

N opens 1♥, E doubles with a very strong hand, S bids 2NT ( Limit raise with 4 cards) West pass, N stops at 3♥, East hesitates ( admitted BIT ) and instead of doubling again, pass. S pass, and West, with :

 

♠ Jxxxxx

♥ xx

♦ x

♣ Jxxx

bids 3S, raised to 4 by East, made 5.

NS call TD : W explains that NS are limited, so he says that even without BIT he would have bid 3♠. NS argue that perhaps he could push them to 4♥, but when East breaks tempo, the balancing is safe. They say that he has a L.A. : Pass.

 

Now if we apply the numbers calculated in the first topic concerning L.A., we can say that it will be easy to find 2,4 people in 100 not balancing 3♠ and passing 3♥, so the adjustement be 3♥ = for NS for both sides.

Is this exact ? :unsure:

Thank you in advance, Al. Ohana

[Sven Pran]

David, thank you for your information about Capitals...but I have not got your opinion on the topic    :(

 

More on this subject :

N opens 1♥, E doubles with a very strong hand, S bids 2NT ( Limit raise with 4 cards) West pass, N stops at 3♥, East hesitates ( admitted BIT ) and instead of doubling again, pass. S pass, and West, with :

 

♠ Jxxxxx

♥  xx

♦ x

♣  Jxxx   

bids 3S, raised to 4 by East, made 5.

NS call TD : W explains that NS are limited, so he says that even without BIT he would have bid 3♠. NS argue that perhaps he could push them to 4♥, but when East breaks tempo, the balancing is safe. They say that he has a L.A. : Pass.

 

Now if we apply the numbers calculated in the first topic concerning L.A., we can say that it will be easy to find 2,4 people in 100 not balancing 3♠ and passing 3♥, so the adjustement be 3♥ = for NS for both sides.

Is this exact ?  :unsure:

Thank you in advance, Al. Ohana

If I may cast my vote, this is how i would have judged as a Director:

 

West knew after the 2NT bid from South that this was a limited raise (in ♥) and still decided to pass.

 

The only "new" information to West when he reopened the auction with his bid of 3♠ was that North did not push to 4♥ and that East had his BIT.

 

I consider the information from North not being interested in a game contract insiginificant compared to the apparent fact that East had values sufficient to possibly making another double or to bid even at this level.

 

So my vote is to disallow the reopening bid by West and adjust to 3♥ with whatever number of tricks North would make in that contract.

 

regards Sven

[PeterE]

Now if we apply the numbers calculated in the first topic concerning L.A., we can say that it will be easy to find 2,4 people in 100 not balancing 3♠ and passing 3♥, so the adjustement be 3♥ = for NS for both sides.

Is this exact ?

Not exactly.

 

In order to judge "balancing" without an LA you need [my numbers] 80 out of 100 players who take serious consideration on balancing _and_ not more than 5 out of 100 who would really pass.

 

The outcome though will be the same :unsure:

[Codo]

I am no lawyer, but as a player, I think 3 Spade is clear cut.

Especially if you have the partnership understanding that this is no direct 3 spade bid, because a freely given bid must show some defence or more hcps or whatever.

[gnasher]

Presumably "among the class of players in question" means "from the set of players who would have passed over 2NT". To me, it seems quite hard to guess what such a player would do when 3♥ comes back to them.

[StevenG]

Presumably "among the class of players in question" means "from the set of players who would have passed over 2NT". To me, it seems quite hard to guess what such a player would do when 3♥ comes back to them.

I would have passed over 2NT with some partners, for the simple reason that any bid here would be constructive. Having passed, I can now balance quite easily as that in no way misdescribes my hand.

 

I don't think you can necessarily talk about "class of player" in isolation. My methods in any partnership are constrained by partnership methods, which in turn are usually constrained by how my partner likes to play.

[OleBerg]

Presumably "among the class of players in question" means "from the set of players who would have passed over 2NT".  To me, it seems quite hard to guess what such a player would do when 3♥ comes back to them.

I would have passed over 2NT with some partners, for the simple reason that any bid here would be constructive. Having passed, I can now balance quite easily as that in no way misdescribes my hand.

 

I don't think you can necessarily talk about "class of player" in isolation. My methods in any partnership are constrained by partnership methods, which in turn are usually constrained by how my partner likes to play.

If acting as I director, I would be very skeptic if someone tried to place themselves in the "Not good enough to bid the first time, but now 3♠'s is obvious"-bracket. But of course it is not impossible.

 

Anyway, to answer OP's question:

 

Yes, if you judge pass to be a LA (and judge that pass demonstrably suggests bidding, which I find obvious), then 3♥ for both sides is correct.

 

Edit: The word "good" refers to the player, not the hand. ;)

[blackshoe]

"the bid is clearcut" ≠ "there is no LA to the bid"

[bluejak]

If acting as I director, I would be very skeptic if someone tried to place themselves in the "Not good enough to bid the first time, but now 3♠'s is obvious"-bracket. But of course it is not impossible.

I am certainly in that camp, so how do I convince you I am? :rolleyes:

 

I do not think there is any doubt that quite a few players would pass first time so as not to give partner the wrong idea of strength, but would bid 3♠ this time. If I had to guess, amongst relatively experienced tournament players, I would expect the number in this camp to be over 60%.

 

But that, of course, is not enough to make 3♠ legal.

[OleBerg]

If acting as I director, I would be very skeptic if someone tried to place themselves in the "Not good enough to bid the first time, but now 3♠'s is obvious"-bracket. But of course it is not impossible.

I am certainly in that camp, so how do I convince you I am? :)

 

Hi David,

 

a good question. To avoid any ambiguity, I will take the liberty of rephrasing it:

 

"How do I asses, if a player is in the bracket where pass is the normal bid the first time, and pass is not a logical alternative the second time?"

 

I would use the tools I normally do, when I have to asses what "class of player" people are.

 

In this case they would probably include:

 

1) Former merits, or lack thereof.

2) At what level are you now competing.

3) The reaction to the question: "Why didn't you bid the first time?", which I would ask very early at the table. (I am quite convinced I would do this, I have been in these situations many times.)

4) System card. If it looks like something that 10-20 years ago would have had the stamp: "Simple but good", it would pull me in the direction of placing the player in the aforementioned bracket.

[bluejak]

You ask a few players: "Might you pass over 2NT?". If they say "Yes", you ask "What would you bid if 3♥ comes round to you?" Now you have your poll and you use the results.

[Codo]

I do not think there is any doubt that quite a few players would pass first time so as not to give partner the wrong idea of strength, but would bid 3♠ this time. If I had to guess, amongst relatively experienced tournament players, I would expect the number in this camp to be over 60%.

 

But that, of course, is not enough to make 3♠ legal.

Up to now here are three players who can imagine to pass over 2 NT opposite some partners and all of them would bid 3 Spade now.

 

3 is no big number, but 100 % is. So how many votes do you need to judge that there is no L.A.?

[OleBerg]

You ask a few players: "Might you pass over 2NT?". If they say "Yes", you ask "What would you bid if 3♥ comes round to you?" Now you have your poll and you use the results.

If I have the option of a poll, that's certainly preferable, but I usually don't. And they have to be of your class.

[Cyberyeti]

David, thank you for your information about Capitals...but I have not got your opinion on the topic    :(

 

More on this subject :

N opens 1♥, E doubles with a very strong hand, S bids 2NT ( Limit raise with 4 cards) West pass, N stops at 3♥, East hesitates ( admitted BIT ) and instead of doubling again, pass. S pass, and West, with :

 

♠ Jxxxxx

♥  xx

♦ x

♣  Jxxx   

bids 3S, raised to 4 by East, made 5.

NS call TD : W explains that NS are limited, so he says that even without BIT he would have bid 3♠. NS argue that perhaps he could push them to 4♥, but when East breaks tempo, the balancing is safe. They say that he has a L.A. : Pass.

 

Now if we apply the numbers calculated in the first topic concerning L.A., we can say that it will be easy to find 2,4 people in 100 not balancing 3♠ and passing 3♥, so the adjustement be 3♥ = for NS for both sides.

Is this exact ?  :lol:

Thank you in advance, Al. Ohana

I think it's nonsensical to pass over 3H, but how nonsensical depends on what constitutes a simple overcall (ie does partner have to double on xx, xx, AKQx, AKxxx because he's too good to bid 2♣ over 1♥).

 

Playing my preferred methods where simple overcalls go up to about 19-20, I would have bid 4♠ over 2N not knowing whether I'm saving or not, with a good hand I could have doubled 2N or bid 3♥ so partner will be aware of what I have.

 

Not playing this method, pass then 3♠ to me shows 13 cards at least 5 of which are spades, and I'm quite good for the bid. Again 3♥ or X would be good hands here, so my failure to bid 3♠ competitive already seriously limits me.

 

I don't consider pass to be a serious LA even though there might be a faint chance it's right. I think you always bid assuming partner has at least 3 spades in this type of auction. Partner appears to be 15+ based on the opps stopping, and I see no reason to assume it's the opponent's hand given that 80%+ of the time we'll have a 9 or 10 card spade fit.

[bali 2]

I agree completely with the fact that 3♠ at the second round is obvious to the great majority of us. But as David says , it is not sufficent for allowing 3♠ because you have an UI and a logical alternative which is pass. If only 2.4 people in 100 is OK for passing ( and I doubt we will not find them ...) then the L.A. must be applied, and

3♠ forbidden. :huh:

 

Sorry to insist on this, but I think the lawyers have been too harsh for the player in possession of such an U.I., and I think that it should be changed to allow 3♠ in such a situation. If not, we Directors ( as much as A.C. )will have a lot of problems to explain the players that an evident bid is not allowed... :rolleyes: We will not allow them to play good bridge !!

 

My suggestion is to say that in such a situation, if the bid in question would have been made by 7 out of 10 players in ....etc, then it should be allowed. And the poll easy to realise.

Thank you in advance, Al. Ohana

[Cyberyeti]

I agree completely with the fact that 3♠ at the second round is obvious to the great majority of us. But as David says , it is not sufficent for allowing 3♠ because you have an UI and a logical alternative which is pass. If only 2.4 people in 100 is OK for passing ( and I doubt we will not find them ...) then the L.A. must be applied, and

3♠ forbidden. :rolleyes:

In the UK, my understanding is that you would need to find 20 in 100 not 2.4 to make pass a LA, it used to be 30 and I think the old rule was better.

 

Also the standard of the pair is taken into account (there's a clause along the lines of "of the same standard and playing the same methods"), and I can imagine very few good players who would pass here, I think the number of passers would be inversely proportional to their standard.

 

This sort of hand is a dangerous one to poll, because the question about what constitutes a simple overcall will probably not have been asked and presented with the hand, so players will use their own agreements leading to the assessment of partner's probable spade length being pretty random.

[helene_t]

I would bid 3♠ now. Whether I would have bid 3♠ at my first turn depends on partnership agreement.

 

We would probably find a lot more than 2% who would pass the second time. No poll is unanimous.

[bluejak]

If pass is an LA, Al, then 3♠ is not evident. And it should not be too difficult to explain to players that they should follow the rules of the game they play. If this had happened to me I would have passed, not bid 3♠, and after the hand explained to my partner never to think and pass in such a situation again.

 

Yes, these days there are people who do not think rules apply to them. No need for such players to get any sympathy whatever.

[gnasher]

If this had happened to me I would have passed, not bid 3♠, and after the hand explained to my partner never to think and pass in such a situation again.

I don't agree with that approach. I'd rather partner made the right decision slowly than the wrong decision quickly, even if that does mean more UI. Thinking and passing costs only if partner would have bid without the UI and doing so isn't clear-cut.

 

Edit: worst of all, of course, is to think, decide that you're not worth a bid, and then bid anyway in order to avoid giving UI.

Edited September 4, 2009 by gnasher

[Codo]

If pass is an LA, Al, then 3♠ is not evident.

I rephrase my question:

 

Up to now, 5 from 5 players who posted here have said that they had bid 3 Spade and that pass is no LA.

 

As the number of people who need to choose the LA seem to vary from 2.4 to around 20 from 100, what is the "offical" approach on this question?

 

Or is this just a grey area?

[blackshoe]

The determination of what constitutes an LA is not made in the laws nor in most places in regulations. It is, therefore, a matter of TD discretion.I think this was done deliberately in view of the idea that it is unlikely that a law or regulation on the subject could adequately cover all possible situations.

 

Attempts to quantify what constitutes an LA may impact adversely on the TD's use of his judgement in some cases. For that reason, as well as difficulty in finding enough people to make a meaningful poll, the "7 in 10" or "2.4 in 10", or whatever numbers you care to state, is a guideline only. OTOH, if the TD is prepared to rule outside the guideline, he must also be willing to accept being overturned by the committee — and he should have a pretty good argument as to why he didn't follow the guideline if he's to have any hope of the AC upholding his ruling.

 

I don't think putting anyone's idea of what the guideline should be into law (or regulation) as a hard and fast rule is a good idea. IAC, discussion of that question belongs in our Changing Laws and Regulations forum.

[OleBerg]

The determination of what constitutes an LA is not made in the laws nor in most places in regulations. It is, therefore, a matter of TD discretion.I think this was done deliberately in view of the idea that it is unlikely that a law or regulation on the subject could adequately cover all possible situations.

 

Attempts to quantify what constitutes an LA may impact adversely on the TD's use of his judgement in some cases. For that reason, as well as difficulty in finding enough people to make a meaningful poll, the "7 in 10" or "2.4 in 10", or whatever numbers you care to state, is a guideline only. OTOH, if the TD is prepared to rule outside the guideline, he must also be willing to accept being overturned by the committee — and he should have a pretty good argument as to why he didn't follow the guideline if he's to have any hope of the AC upholding his ruling.

 

I don't think putting anyone's idea of what the guideline should be into law (or regulation) as a hard and fast rule is a good idea. IAC, discussion of that question belongs in our Changing Laws and Regulations forum.

Though I think I agree with this, it is not without problems.

 

It leaves very much in the hands of the TD's approach to the game.

 

Just judging from this thread, David might find that for a player passing initially, passing 3♠ is not an LA. Meanwhile others, like Gnasher (Andy Bowles), would find that if you pass 3♠, you are capable of many strange things. And it wouldn't be unreasonable for a TD to be of the same opinion as Andy.

 

So two different players would get two different verdicts, depending on the TD. Of course we have committees to sort such things out, but the same problem might apply there.

[hotShot]

First of all we do need to recognize that this is a matter of agreement.

 

If it's a partnership agreement that a direct bid over 2NT (limit raise) shows a stronger hand than the one West held, than North 3♥ bid showing a hand to weak to bid game, creates a new opportunity to decide. If you were forced to make a maximum pass last round, passing is no longer a LA.

 

If it's within the partnership agreements to bid this hand over 2NT, than bidding over 3♥ is redoing a decision already made last round. If pass was an alternative last round it surely is this round. The TD does not need to poll other player.

 

So the TD has to investigate the partnership agreement and in the first case his poll has to be:

 

If you were forced to pass over 2NT would you bid now?

 

From the OP we know:

W explains that NS are limited, so he says that even without BIT he would have bid 3♠

Unfortunately most player don't know, which magical word they have to say to the TD.

In this case he should have said:

By agreement I was not strong enough to bid over 2NT, so I'm happy to get another chance to show my hand now

Since West did not state this, the TD should in doubt decide in favor of the NOS, leaving it to a committee to investigate further.

[bluejak]

You say 5 out of 5 would bid 3♠. But did any of them consider pass? Under the old rules, you wanted to know what percentage would choose the call: nowadays the most critical question is how many would consider it.

 

As to the percentages, I think the top level laws people think you should not use percentages at all: Max Bavin does not believe in them, for example. But I think they are wrong: I believe one of the problems with lawmakers is they aim too high, and forget that most rulings are given at club level by club level TDs.

 

As to what is the official view, in the EBU/WBU we believe if two out of ten would consider an action, of whom some would actually choose it, some being not zero nor only maniacs, then it is an LA. But most authorities have not given such guidance. I do not go so far as Ed in saying it is "a matter of TD discretion" because the TD should learn from other sources, not just decide for himself. He might be trained: he might read something produced by his RA or TO: he might read IBLF or RGB or BLML: he might read Appeals booklets.

[blackshoe]

I agree that a TD's discretion should be well informed - either by training, or by his own research, or by consulting. But it's still his discretion - and I don't think we want TDs to go back to "make some ruling, and let the AC sort it out". I would not, for example, "leave it to a committee to investigate further" unless I'm severely time-constrained. If I feel there's something to investigate, I'll do that — it's my job.