Any logical alternatives here?

[sfi]

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

 

That's my point - nobody could construct a hand where they would double the first time and pass the second time in this auction. Hence the rather unscientific conclusion is that if this person considered it a double and bid hand, then pass is not a LA on this auction.

[mrdct]

if this person considered it a double and bid hand, then pass is not a LA on this auction.

I'm quite sure that this player is of the standard where they bid their hands one bid at a time and would never think ahead about what they would do on the next round.

[richlp]

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

I have never really understood why this should be so. Assuming that nobody would ever chose the call chosen at the table, does that really mean you can't take a poll at all? Does it mean that you substitute the opinion of the AC - the members of which, by this definition, are also not peers of the player involved?

 

In virtually every Bridge World Master Solver's set (and I assume this to be true in any equivalent publication with a large enough panel) there is at least one problem where a particular answer is selected by only one panelist. Does that imply a total lack of peers for an AC to poll?

 

 

so your first question should be "what do you do over 2♠ constructive weak two with this hand red vs green?" and then you only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those chose double as their initial action.

 

Obviously I think this is far too restrictive. I think you should also include in your poll those who seriously considered the original action.

 

 

Moreover, the follow-up question shouldn't be "what do you bid?" it should be "what actions would you be giving serious contemplation to?".

"and which would you choose" should also be part of the question, shouldn't it?

[mrdct]

"and which would you choose" should also be part of the question, shouldn't it?

No. The definition of LA is things that you would give serious contemplation to doing, not the actual choice you make.

[barmar]

No. The definition of LA is things that you would give serious contemplation to doing, not the actual choice you make.

It includes both. A significant number of have to consider it, and some have to choose it. So when you poll, you need to ask the pollee what actions he's choosing from, and which he finally chooses.

[barmar]

In virtually every Bridge World Master Solver's set (and I assume this to be true in any equivalent publication with a large enough panel) there is at least one problem where a particular answer is selected by only one panelist. Does that imply a total lack of peers for an AC to poll?

Of course not, you're putting the cart before the horse. You poll peers to get the LAs, you don't determine whether someone is a peer based on their answer to the poll.

[Cyberyeti]

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action

 

 

I have never really understood why this should be so. Assuming that nobody would ever chose the call chosen at the table, does that really mean you can't take a poll at all? Does it mean that you substitute the opinion of the AC - the members of which, by this definition, are also not peers of the player involved?

 

There is a thread elsewhere on the forums where somebody has done something palpably insane first time round (2♥-X-P-2N leb rather than 2♠ on ♠KQJxx and flat small cards), serious question, what do you do if trying to poll on subsequent action when somebody's already done something that ludicrous (with no excuse of pulling the wrong card or similar).

[bluejak]

The idea that polls should be limited to people who would have chosen the earlier action is often impractical and therefore flawed.

 

The idea of polls is to make the decision process better for a TD by widening the group of people providing input into the bridge judgement part of the decision. Refusing to do so because you cannot find people who agree with the earlier decision means that the TD has to use his own bridge judgement solely which, if he personally would not take the action, seems a very poor idea.

 

One of the advantages of good players is that their experience and knowledge often gives them an insight into what other players will do, so polling them is useful even when it concerns actions they would not have taken themselves.

[aguahombre]

The idea that polls should be limited to people who would have chosen the earlier action is often impractical and therefore flawed.

 

The idea of polls is to make the decision process better for a TD by widening the group of people providing input into the bridge judgement part of the decision. Refusing to do so because you cannot find people who agree with the earlier decision means that the TD has to use his own bridge judgement solely which, if he personally would not take the action, seems a very poor idea.

 

One of the advantages of good players is that their experience and knowledge often gives them an insight into what other players will do, so polling them is useful even when it concerns actions they would not have taken themselves.

These thoughts are quite accurate in describing the type of poll commonly used at the club-level by a director seeking advice of experienced players. It is consultation ---useful in coming to a decision.

 

Those of us who might be on an AC at a tournament would be our own consultants, but should consider the results of any poll of the other kind: where players of equivalent experience and methods state whether they would consider a certain action and/or actually take that action.

 

Of course, it is unlikely to get a "peer" poll at the club which will come up with the numbers to determine a L.A.

 

Don't get hung up on the term "poll", which can apply to either a consultation with experienced players or to a poll of peers. Both can be useful; one might not be possible in the given situation.