Just judgement

[nige1]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skq653hdk965cj875]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Scottish Bridge Union. Open teams competition.

P (2♥*) P (P)

?

2♥ was alerted. North asked its meaning and was told 5+ ♥ and 4+ minor.

He then asked its range and was told 5-9 HCP.

Is a protective 2♠ a permitted logical alternative for South?[/hv]

[jdonn]

2♠ is easily an LA.

[bluejak]

Of course 2♠ is an LA. But surely the question is whether pass is an LA.

[Cascade]

Its not close to a PASS for me.

 

2♠ for me but some might double with this shape.

[aguahombre]

again...alerted and asked. The other thread ended with a discussion of how in ACBL there is more asking than in EBU. Now we have Scotland, who knows? Well, someone knows, but not me.

 

But the range should have been part of the explanation, and over here (ACBL) that follow-up question would be expected --if left out of the original answer. So, again, I see no "unusual interest", or whatever they call it.

 

Would probably choose 2S, though --rather than double. Pass is not a L.A., IMO. But someone might think double is suggested by the question, so I would lean the other way.

 

Come to think of it, maybe the question was whether 2S was a logical alternative to doubling --since passing seems just plain wrong.

[peachy]

2S stands out as the normal action. Dbl is a lesser LA. Pass is not a LA, IMO.

[Codo]

2 ♠ is easy, double is a LA, pass is not.

[paulg]

The slight wrinkle in the SBU regulations is that EW should have disclosed their opening two bids at the start of the round so that most of the questioning should have been unnecessary.

 

I don't think Pass is a LA.

 

As someone who plays in the SBU, EBU and ACBL I can confirm that there is a LOT more asking about alerts in the ACBL. But there are far fewer alerts in the ACBL as its alerting regulations are more in tune with tournament methods than any of the rules in the UK.

 

Paul

[bluejak]

I do not believe that the method of disclosing methods at the start of a round makes questions such as this unnecessary. First, it is very difficult to remember opponents methods as well as mine, so I do not bother, just find out when I need to. Second, even if they have disclosed them at the start of the round, they will not have disclosed the strength.

[nige1]

The slight wrinkle in the SBU regulations is that EW should have disclosed their opening two bids at the start of the round so that most of the questioning should have been unnecessary.

I don't think Pass is a LA.

As someone who plays in the SBU, EBU and ACBL I can confirm that there is a LOT more asking about alerts in the ACBL. But there are far fewer alerts in the ACBL as its alerting regulations are more in tune with tournament methods than any of the rules in the UK.

• As far as I know (Paul can correct me), in Scotland, we abide by WBF disclosure regulations.
  
• At the start of the 3-board round, East-West announced "Weak notrump, 4 card majors, Lucas twos".
  
• If South had passed 2♥, West would probably go two down (NS+100).
  
• In fact, South bid 2♠ and North bid 3N. He cashed the nine top tricks, available on any lead (NS+400).
  
• So if pass is a logical alternative and 2♠ is suggested by all the questioning, then, arguably, East-West were damaged.
  
• I just wanted to to confirm that 2♠ a permitted logical alternative, here.
  

[gwnn]

low level pass 2S and x

medium level 2S and x

high level I wouldn't know ;)

[gordontd]

[*] So if pass is a logical alternative and 2♠ is suggested by the hestiation, then, arguably, East-West were damaged.

[*] I just wanted to to confirm that 2♠ a permitted logical alternative, here.

I think you're asking the wrong question, or perhaps phrasing it strangely.

 

The question should be "is Pass a logical alternative?" and the answer has clearly been given as "No".

[Pict]

The slight wrinkle in the SBU regulations is that EW should have disclosed their opening two bids at the start of the round so that most of the questioning should have been unnecessary.

Is the interpretation of Law 16 in Scotland (in relation to asking about alerts) closer to the ACBL model that says 'ask' or closer to the EBU model that says 'don't ask unless you are almost certainly bidding - I know that is not what the Orange Book says exactly, but seems to be the interpretation in practice).

[olegru]

I believe there are several questions:

1. If partners question about alerted bid and follow up question after incomplete explanation anyhow restrict the possible bids of South?

2. If yes -how? Could he choose a very reasonable bid if it became more attractive if less attractive bids are exist?

3. If not - what is the less attractive LA to 2 spade bid here?

[jdonn]

Btw I'm not sure how it matters that 2♠ is an LA. If anything a fast pass by partner suggests passing and a slow pass by partner suggests doubling. But I'm just speculating on why this was asked, I know. Maybe 2♥ was mixexplained in some relevant way.

[nige1]

I think you're asking the wrong question, or perhaps phrasing it strangely. The question should be "is Pass a logical alternative?" and the answer has clearly been given as "No".

I believe there are several questions:

1. If partners question about alerted bid and follow up question after incomplete explanation anyhow restrict the possible bids of South?

2. If yes -how? Could he choose a very reasonable bid if it became more attractive if less attractive bids are exist?

3. If not - what is the less attractive LA to 2 spade bid here?

Btw I'm not sure how it matters that 2♠ is an LA. If anything a fast pass by partner suggests passing and a slow pass by partner suggests doubling. But I'm just speculating on why this was asked, I know. Maybe 2♥ was mixexplained in some relevant way.

There was no misexplanation and I'm aware that 2♠ is an LA. My query is: Is 2♠ a permitted LA, in context? Gordon says I could phrase this better. I suppose a director would split it up into a series of questions like olegru's. Anyway, it seems that the answer is yes. Thank you all.

[jdonn]

Oh I see, partner showed interest. Yes it still seems permitted, and doubling seems like what was most suggested in any case.

[paulg]

The slight wrinkle in the SBU regulations is that EW should have disclosed their opening two bids at the start of the round so that most of the questioning should have been unnecessary.

Is the interpretation of Law 16 in Scotland (in relation to asking about alerts) closer to the ACBL model that says 'ask' or closer to the EBU model that says 'don't ask unless you are almost certainly bidding - I know that is not what the Orange Book says exactly, but seems to be the interpretation in practice).

Unsurprisingly the practise is more akin to the EBU than the ACBL. There is no regulation but the advice given by the SBU is

"Hence, while the Laws give you the right to ask questions, unnecessary enquiries or questions directed at particular calls, may limit partner’s options in the subsequent bidding or play. It is therefore not advisable to ask questions if your intention is to pass regardless of the answer."

 

@nige1

The disclosure rules are nothing to do with the WBF. It is a Scottish regulation.

 

@bluejak

I am coming around to your view that disclosure at the start of the round is (mostly/normally/almost always) irrelevant subsequently. But I believe that it is a useful practice.

[Pict]

Thanks Cardsharp.

 

Those @.. things were emails to You?

 

I do start to get confused on the BBO forums when (like 1970's films) continuity is lost and it seems there is a shadow world of private forums/emails.

 

Back to the 'issue'.

 

It seems that in the ACBL, someone waves their arms and says 'ask me' and you are recommended to ask. Good, but maybe a bit simplistic for a forum. Not much to discuss.

 

The EBU is much better. You can ask but not just because you want to know (that would be very simple).

 

You can ask in order (as dburn says) to tell partner you have values for a bid. Or (as bluejak suggests) that you are just short of values for a bid, in order to convey UI.

[blackshoe]

Thanks Cardsharp.

 

Those @.. things were emails to You?

 

I do start to get confused on the BBO forums when (like 1970's films) continuity is lost and it seems there is a shadow world of private forums/emails.

No. He's replying to earlier posts in this thread by those people. If you can't remember what's been said previously (I often forget myself) it's a good idea to go back and review at least the last couple of pages. That generally avoids "loss of continuity".

[Pict]

Thanks Cardsharp.

 

Those @.. things were emails to You? 

 

I do start  to get confused on the BBO forums when (like 1970's films) continuity is lost and it seems there is a shadow world of private forums/emails.

No. He's replying to earlier posts in this thread by those people. If you can't remember what's been said previously (I often forget myself) it's a good idea to go back and review at least the last couple of pages. That generally avoids "loss of continuity".

blackshoe

 

Could you quote the @.. statements. I didn't recall seeing them, and still dont find them.

[blackshoe]

As far as I know (Paul can correct me), in Scotland, we abide by WBF disclosure regulations.

First page, tenth post in the thread.

[blackshoe]

I do not believe that the method of disclosing methods at the start of a round makes questions such as this unnecessary. First, it is very difficult to remember opponents methods as well as mine, so I do not bother, just find out when I need to. Second, even if they have disclosed them at the start of the round, they will not have disclosed the strength.

Ninth post in the thread, just before Nigel's.

[Pict]

Thanks blackshoe.

 

Just hadn't realised the @ was a marker for an unstated quote.

[blackshoe]

Not common here, common in other chat modes.