Simple hesitation case

[mamos]

Law 16 B 1 (b)

(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

In the past few years the "poll" has become the normal way that TDs and ACs have decided on Logical Alternatives.

 

I'm not sure that these polls are always as trustworthy as it seems to be assumed. Anyone, with any vague understanding of social science, knows that manner of asking questions, the wording of the questions, even who it is that asks the questions, can all affect the answers that are given.

 

Two polls have been mentioned in this thread. The first poll was conducted within this forum by Bluejak himself. The thread title in itself (in my no so humble opinion) completely invalidates the whole process. Those answering it are immediately clued in to the purpose of asking the question. To establish LAs we need to discover what players would do at the table. Such a poll is invalid - it does not measure what it purports to measure.

 

Moreover Law 16 requires that we consider LAs in relation to "the class of players in question." Bluejak has told us that he was the player in question. High level decisions are ones that expert players are much better at making than average players. Of the 40 or so who responded I doubt if half maybe even a quarter are players at Bluejak's level. My own experience is that expert players are quite good at predicting the actions of weaker players but the reverse is not true.

 

As someone who trains TDs, often works as TDIC and who reads and reviews Appeal Forms, TD Polls concern me greatly. Certainly in the EBU, TD training has not really yet concerned itself with this a great deal but here are a whole host of issues. Proper consideration of player peers is one concern - I don't want to criticise TD colleagues but I've seen little (no?)documentation that reassures me. Players at an event like the one played at Scarborough have all played the same boards. I doubt if players with prior knowledge of the hands and their personal outcomes can ever be used in polls like this. At the very least polls should be written - perhaps with a pro forma and presented to the AC. It's just too easy to (unintentionally) bias the answers you get by the way you ask questions. Quite worryingly TD and ACs seem prepared to take these straw polls as total evidence of what counts as LAs

 

Bluejak wrote

The TD told me he had polled some good players [he did not say how many] and three considered pass, of whom two passed. So I could not fault his methodology.

 

It seems to me that such a poll is unlikely to be worth the back of the fag packet it was probably written on.

[c_corgi]

Proper consideration of player peers is one concern...

 

Indeed. It seems clear now that for Bluejack pass was not an LA. For me it marginally is. I wasn't in Scarborough, but if I had been (and been in Bluejack's situation) I would imagine that the TD would have polled much the same group of people as for Bluejack. Worse, he might have polled me for Bluejack or vice-versa, which would mean that pass would be more likely to be deemed an LA for Bluejack than for me, when it should be the other way around.

 

Incidentally, is there an onus on a player to self-regulate his actions in these UI situations? I would have thought that if I think I have an LA, then I have one, but instead it appears that it is only an LA if the poll determines that it is.

[gordontd]

I'd sulk

I can visualise it. :)

[mamos]

Indeed. It seems clear now that for Bluejack pass was not an LA. For me it marginally is. I wasn't in Scarborough, but if I had been (and been in Bluejack's situation) I would imagine that the TD would have polled much the same group of people as for Bluejack. Worse, he might have polled me for Bluejack or vice-versa, which would mean that pass would be more likely to be deemed an LA for Bluejack than for me, when it should be the other way around.

 

Incidentally, is there an onus on a player to self-regulate his actions in these UI situations? I would have thought that if I think I have an LA, then I have one, but instead it appears that it is only an LA if the poll determines that it is.

 

But you see the questions you should be answering (and indeed be asked) is "What calls do you consider?" - "What call do you make?" -

 

As I understand it your original choice would be "Double".

 

You are not being asked "Is Double a LA?"

[c_corgi]

But you see the questions you should be answering (and indeed be asked) is "What calls do you consider?" - "What call do you make?" -

 

Whatever the form of wording, I would have said something to the effect of "I double but consider pass to be an LA". I would not feel comfortable answering the question without mentioning pass as an LA. It seems unlikely that if peers of Bluejack are being polled they will fail to realise the underlying issue no matter how carefully the question is phrased.

[mjj29]

As someone who trains TDs, often works as TDIC and who reads and reviews Appeal Forms, TD Polls concern me greatly. Certainly in the EBU, TD training has not really yet concerned itself with this a great deal but here are a whole host of issues. Proper consideration of player peers is one concern - I don't want to criticise TD colleagues but I've seen little (no?)documentation that reassures me. Players at an event like the one played at Scarborough have all played the same boards. I doubt if players with prior knowledge of the hands and their personal outcomes can ever be used in polls like this. At the very least polls should be written - perhaps with a pro forma and presented to the AC. It's just too easy to (unintentionally) bias the answers you get by the way you ask questions. Quite worryingly TD and ACs seem prepared to take these straw polls as total evidence of what counts as LAs

Indeed, there are many problems with polls as used in practice. This is why bluejak often writes that they are aids to a TD's judgement, not the be-all and end-all. However, when at an event and all of the players have played all of the boards, save for the TDs, who will only coincidentally be 'peers' of the players in question, and often not at all, what do you suggest is done instead?

 

Certainly there are bad polls and one should be asking 'what actions do you consider and what would you take', without disclosing the UI, but even the good polls suffer from those problems. In that case, however, there is noone to poll but the player in question and while just asking them would be simpler it may suffer from other problems instead... Should TDs and ACs not poll at all and rely on their own judgement when they themselves are not peers of the players in question?

[bluejak]

Incidentally, is there an onus on a player to self-regulate his actions in these UI situations? I would have thought that if I think I have an LA, then I have one, but instead it appears that it is only an LA if the poll determines that it is.

The problem with self-regulation is shown by this example. I considered my double so completely automatic that it never occurred to me that anyone would pass. I was surprised by the opponent even asking for a ruling - I would not have in the reverse situation - but confidently expected a ruling in my favour.

 

I think I can sulk better than mamos, can't I, Gordon?

[billw55]

Indeed, there are many problems with polls as used in practice. This is why bluejak often writes that they are aids to a TD's judgement, not the be-all and end-all. However, when at an event and all of the players have played all of the boards, save for the TDs, who will only coincidentally be 'peers' of the players in question, and often not at all, what do you suggest is done instead?

 

Certainly there are bad polls and one should be asking 'what actions do you consider and what would you take', without disclosing the UI, but even the good polls suffer from those problems. In that case, however, there is noone to poll but the player in question and while just asking them would be simpler it may suffer from other problems instead... Should TDs and ACs not poll at all and rely on their own judgement when they themselves are not peers of the players in question?

Agree. Polls aren't perfect and a good TD should consider the possible flaws. But would it be better to have all TDs rule on LAs unilaterally? How can it be bad to gather more data to consider when making a ruling?

[barmar]

How can it be bad to gather more data to consider when making a ruling?

More data is not necessarily more good data. The utility of poll data is very dependent on selecting the right pollees.

[lamford]

Conducting the poll without the UI is useful, but it is just as important to conduct the poll with the UI. In this example, I regard double as automatic, but would pass because I think that Pass would be chosen by enough of my peers to make it an LA. I am surprised by the size of the Pass vote, but not that there are some votes for Pass, so the fact that "some of them would select it" is clear.

 

And it is a pity that it is not a public poll, so that I could see which loony voted for 6♦

[Quartic]

Conducting the poll without the UI is useful, but it is just as important to conduct the poll with the UI. In this example, I regard double as automatic, but would pass because I think that Pass would be chosen by enough of my peers to make it an LA. I am surprised by the size of the Pass vote, but not that there are some votes for Pass, so the fact that "some of them would select it" is clear.

Whether pass is a LA is not dependant on the existence of UI. I think asking the poll without the UI will give a clear indication of which choices are LAs (as long as peers are suitably chosen), and I can't see any advantage to also conducting the poll with the UI.

[lamford]

Whether pass is a LA is not dependant on the existence of UI. I think asking the poll without the UI will give a clear indication of which choices are LAs (as long as peers are suitably chosen), and I can't see any advantage to also conducting the poll with the UI.

Because those polled can decide what is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That can be difficult as well. Whether Pass is an LA is not dependent on the UI, I agree, but whether it is demonstrably suggested is.

[barmar]

In that case, you have to conduct TWO polls, with two different questions. Q1: WIth no mention of the UI, you give the auction and ask what calls they would consider and which they would choose. Q2: Give the actual auction with the UI, and ask what they think the UI suggests.

 

Ideally you would use different players in the two polls, but that's almost certainly impractical. Q1 should be asked first, to avoid bias from hearing about the UI.

[Vampyr]

but whether it is demonstrably suggested is.

 

I think that these threads tend to be a little lenient on the offenders, since the criterion is not that a call is demonstrably suggested, but that it could be.

[barmar]

I think that these threads tend to be a little lenient on the offenders, since the criterion is not that a call is demonstrably suggested, but that it could be.

Interesting point. The "demonstrably" qualifier seems to make the requirement harder, but then the "could be" qualifier reduces it. And these are both very subjective terms.

[campboy]

I have always thought the "could be" was there to emphasize that we are not ruling on whether the player involved actually was influenced in that direction by the UI, but whether players in general might be.

[Trinidad]

I have always thought the "could be" was there to emphasize that we are not ruling on whether the player involved actually was influenced in that direction by the UI, but whether players in general might be.

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.

It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

 

Law 16 consists of two parts: an objective part that needs to be demonstrated (proven) and a subjective part that merely needs to be a possibility (could):

 

The objective part is that the TD has to demonstrate (prove) that the UI made the chosen action more attractive than other LAs. This proof needs to be "air tight". It is objective, call it mathematical, call it a fact.

 

The subjective part is to rule that the player could have used the fact that the UI made his action more attractive to come to his choice. We don't know whether the player did use the UI or whether he ignored it. Maybe he would have always taken his action, irrespective of the UI, or even with the opposite UI. We don't know, since we can't look in the player's brain. But it is possible that the player may have used the UI to come to his choice. And that is enough for the subjective part.

 

So, the "could" refers to the player's thought process, something that a TD cannot possibly prove. And the demonstrably refers to the fact that the TD has to demonstrate that the UI made the player's action made more attractive than a logical alternative action. This is something that a TD can prove.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.

It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

[bluejak]

The objective part is that the TD has to demonstrate (prove) that the UI made the chosen action more attractive than other LAs. This proof needs to be "air tight". It is objective, call it mathematical, call it a fact.

He does not need to demonstrate it, but it does need to be demonstrable. And demonstrate certainly does not mean prove, and it is not a fact, it is a judgement by the TD and/or AC.

[Trinidad]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information [] the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

(Emphasis is mine.)

 

The words "choose", "could" and "suggest" belong together. They refer to the player's subjective thought process. "Suggestion" and "choose" are, by their nature, subjective words: They belong to the player"s brain, psyche or whatever.

 

A player may not chose what could have been suggested [to the subjective player, obviously] by the UI. But it is the TD's job to demonstrate [objectively] that the action the player took could have been demonstrably [objectively, factually] suggested by the UI over an LA.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.

It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

The words "choose", "could" and "suggest" belong together. They refer to the player's subjective thought process. "Suggestion" and "choose" are, by their nature, subjective words: They belong to the player"s brain, psyche or whatever.

 

A player may not chose what could have been suggested [to the subjective player, obviously] by the UI. But it is the TD's job to demonstrate [objectively] that the action the player took could have been demonstrably [objectively, factually] suggested by the UI over an LA.

You quoted in your post 660832 just above

Law 16B1{a}: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information…the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The underline emphasis was yours, the bold red emphasis is mine. IMO, it is the latter which is important, as it clearly states that the choice this law prohibits is, among other things, an LA*. So I do disagree with your post 660819. However, this does not address the direction your thoughts are taking in 660832 above. On that, if I understand you correctly, we agree, but I'm not sure why you make the point.

 

*Yes, I realize that "practice" deprecates this interpretation. I think, however, that since the WBFLC has had several opportunities over the years to change the wording, and have not done so, that either (1) the WBFLC intends the law to mean just what it says, or (2) the WBFLC intends the law to be read the way "practice" would read it - e.g., substituting "plausible" for "logical". But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

[Trinidad]

You quoted in your post 660832 just above

The underline emphasis was yours, the bold red emphasis is mine. IMO, it is the latter which is important, as it clearly states that the choice this law prohibits is, among other things, an LA*. So I do disagree with your post 660819. However, this does not address the direction your thoughts are taking in 660832 above. On that, if I understand you correctly, we agree, but I'm not sure why you make the point.

 

*Yes, I realize that "practice" deprecates this interpretation. I think, however, that since the WBFLC has had several opportunities over the years to change the wording, and have not done so, that either (1) the WBFLC intends the law to mean just what it says, or (2) the WBFLC intends the law to be read the way "practice" would read it - e.g., substituting "plausible" for "logical". But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

Because the WBFLC works in mysterious ways...

 

Rik

[mjj29]

But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

[blackshoe]

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

I don't think so. If you find one, please let us know.

[campboy]

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

The White Book doesn't say anything about it, which suggests there isn't one.