L.A. or not ?

[peachy]

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.

This is bad TD practice.

It is the TD's job to investigate until he is satisfied and has enough data to make a lawful and reasoned ruling.

[campboy]

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.

Is there an official view on what proportion of bridge players are maniacs?

 

For the original question, fwiw, I would bid 3♠, but would consider pass (am I pushing them into a game?). I would have passed over 2NT for the same reason that others gave.

[Codo]

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.

English is not my native language, so please excuse if I ask a too simple question, but I understand "to consider " as: "to think about".

 

If this is the right expression, I always think about any possible bid, because I need to judge which one I choose. I thought that all players would do this through their bidding process. So yes, I may thought about passing and found it so wrong that I would never judge this is a possible alternative.

 

Or is "to consider": Being close to make this bid? This is a bid tricky, because I would be much closer to passing then to bid 7 NT f.e. What is close? For me, all bids but 3 Spade and passing would get a zero, passing a 10 and 3 Spade a 100. Is this close enough to consider pass?

[campboy]

The phrase actually used in the law is "given serious consideration", not just considered.

[bluejak]

I do not really believe you consider every bid, you know.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skq43haj3dq32c654]133|100|Scoring: MP

1NT P ?[/hv]

 

1NT shows 12-14.

 

Do you consider 3NT? Probably

Do you consider 2NT [natural]? Quite likely

Do you consider 2C [stayman]? Yes

Do you consider 5♥? No

Do you consider 7♦? No

 

I do not believe you think about every bid: no-one does. Why would you think about 5♥ and 7♦? That is ridiculous, surely? :)

[mycroft]

Count me in for the 4S directly, so I'm out of the poll. But...

 

How does N/S make a game-forcing raise of hearts? They happen, you know, especially when doubler's partner has a 2-count. The standard over here is that 1M-X-2NT is "limit raise *or better*" - and that's why I bid 4S off the mark. If they show game values, and then I bid 4S, they're more likely to get it right than if I do it right away. Also, 4Sx might just go for 100 (if not vul) and beat 3H, if they don't think they have game (yes, 3S would do better yet, but how do we get there and stay there?) And it might even make - and when it does, it's likely that 4H makes as well.

 

After 4S, if North has a "accept game" hand, how does he show it? If South has a "or better" hand, how does he know if North has the extras that make 5H on or the extras that set 4S (or the hand that needs to sacrifice)?

 

Having said that, the "limit raise or better" might convince others to pass first, and bid 3S over 3H; if they're going to game, he doesn't want to sacrifice, but he won't sit for a partscore. If it pushes N/S to game, they've already said they don't have the values for it - maybe it's wrong (or maybe it's Matchpoints - where it's a "top or bottom" decision rather than a "risk -6 to gain 5 if I'm lucky, 1 if I'm not". Why should we assume that if they now go game it's because they guessed wrong the first time?), or maybe it's right and he just screwed up. Oh well.

[axman]

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.

I think that the point of view is relevant, for example given the subject auction, how many reasonable players would be willing to lay say 10 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract?; I’ll lay those odds. Why, because E was considering taking the auction to the 4 level.

 

And then, of these same reasonable players, after changing doubler’s hand to a minimum non descript [double] and changing the bidding to good tempo, how many would lay even 5 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract? I wouldn’t lay even money.

 

I’ve seen hands like this go for 800 when even 300 was too much. I’ve seen the opponents time and again blast off into a slam they decided to play in a partial -after pard bids 3S on such a hand.

 

On some occasions I will bid 3S, but none will be occasions when UI is available such as described here.

[hotShot]

It's always the same.

If you don't start with a poll in the BI-Section asking what to bid, only presenting the bidding and one hand, you will never get an unbiased poll.

[bali 2]

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.

English is not my native language, so please excuse if I ask a too simple question, but I understand "to consider " as: "to think about".

 

If this is the right expression, I always think about any possible bid, because I need to judge which one I choose. I thought that all players would do this through their bidding process. So yes, I may thought about passing and found it so wrong that I would never judge this is a possible alternative.

 

Or is "to consider": Being close to make this bid? This is a bid tricky, because I would be much closer to passing then to bid 7 NT f.e. What is close? For me, all bids but 3 Spade and passing would get a zero, passing a 10 and 3 Spade a 100. Is this close enough to consider pass?

"To consider" is not, in my opinion, to think about. I think it is "to be thinking of doing", to view something, to have during a moment the intention to do something or to say something.

So , if West was only for moment thinking of passing, he was "considering " passing, and this was a simple alternative. When his partner breaks tempo, that simple alternative becomes a Logical Alternative, and the TD cannot allow him to bid 3S.

This is my opinion, but I agree completly that it is very hard for West to pass with a hand worth "considering " 4S... :P

Thank you all for your interesting opinions

Al. Ohana