Is Pass an LA?

[aguahombre]

Mr. Corgi: Your contention doesn't seem to be in line with the facts. Bluejack's four people would have bid 6C direct over 5S. They would bid 6C over the redouble.

 

The argument that if West didn't bid over 5S, the UI suggests doing so over 5SX is valid. But, West was never in that position. The redouble changes the math drastically, especially considering the state of the match. Passing is no longer logical, and it is a masochistic alternative.

[c_corgi]

Mr. Corgi: Your contention doesn't seem to be in line with the facts. Bluejack's four people would have bid 6C direct over 5S. They would bid 6C over the redouble.

 

See edit, but not sure if that was what you were referring to. The facts you reiterated are the ones I was discussing. They mean that Bluejack's pollees are not peers of West.

[aguahombre]

I don't think there is a large enough pool of players to restrict the definition of a peer to only those who would have bid the same way up to the point of the poll.

 

It also might be an awkward process to select "peers" and then eliminate them by that criterion. At some point you just have to say, "All right, so a cow flew by earlier; what do you do now?"

[mrdct]

I think pass by West over 5♠xx is a logical alternative. for which the test is pretty mild iirc - something like "in his contemplations".

 

The ruling is still a bit complex after that as there is surely a good chance that East will rip the redouble himself at least some proportion of the time. Also, I think South's redouble should probably be treated as a SEWOG as it's basically telling the opps to sacrifice in 6♥ which seems to be a serious error unrelated to the possible infraction of West taking advantage of the UI.

 

If weighted rulings are allowed in the jurisdiction (sorry I can't remember what the situation is in the EBU on that) I'm going let NS keep the table result and give EW something like 50/50 table results and 5♠Sxx=.

 

That might actually result in both teams losing the match, which I imagine means a a close loser from another part of the bracket survives to the next round - but need to see what the regs say about that.

[lamford]

Also, I think South's redouble should probably be treated as a SEWOG as it's basically telling the opps to sacrifice in 6♥ which seems to be a serious error unrelated to the possible infraction of West taking advantage of the UI.

That would be amusing, classifying the only bid that happened to give NS a chance to win the match as a SEWoG, as Pass would have lost by 5. A bit like VixTD once adjusting the score to what some would have viewed as a SEWoG.

[campboy]

The point is that it is no surprise that players who wanted to bid the round before want to bid now, and it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that everyone will give the same answer to both questions.

 

If we can only find players who would bid the round before, the question we need to ask is whether the subsequent round of bidding has made passing more or less attractive. Unless passing has clearly become less attractive there is no reason to suppose it would have gone from this player's preferred action to "not an LA".

[lamford]

That might actually result in both teams losing the match, which I imagine means [a] a close loser from another part of the bracket survives to the next round - but need to see what the regs say about that.

I am not sure that you can have a weighted ruling in a head-to-head match, which this was. If you decide that East would pull the redouble half the time, then EW would still gain on the board - as making 6Hx is so huge. Trawling through the EBU Appeals booklets, however, I find no evidence of this type of "change of mind" ruling. East doubled 5S because she thought it was going off, not with the intention of pulling any redouble to 6H. RMB1 did not consider the possibility of East pulling - or we would have needed to play extra boards in case the weighting led to a tie.

[campboy]

You can give weighted and split scores, but the final result of a knockout teams match only depends on the difference between the two IMP scores, not what they are. So the team that "loses" by fewer IMPs than their opponents will win the match.

[billw55]

I was consulted when returning by car from losing a k/o match in Carlisle - perhaps I am the "leading TD" - and after ending the telephone call, I considered what I would bid and asked my three team-mates.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ directly over 5♠ and considered nothing else.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ over the redouble and considered nothing else.

 

I do not believe pass is an LA and no longer consider it close.

Now this is really interesting.

 

Why should 6♣ be considered rather than 6♥? We are already committed to the six level. We have at least nine hearts and probably ten. How likely is it that 6♣ is going to be a better contract than 6♥? Why give out this potentially valuable (and as yet totally undisclosed) information to the opponents? Or is the intent to encourage partner to bid 7/6 with a double fit and a spade void, should ops try to save? That doesn't seem like a good idea with this zero control hand.

 

I like this thread, learning a lot.

[blackshoe]

I think pass by West over 5♠xx is a logical alternative. for which the test is pretty mild iirc - something like "in his contemplations".

No.

Law 16B1{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.

(Emphasis is mine.)

[mycroft]

Now this is really interesting.

 

Why should 6♣ be considered rather than 6♥? We are already committed to the six level. We have at least nine hearts and probably ten. How likely is it that 6♣ is going to be a better contract than 6♥? Why give out this potentially valuable (and as yet totally undisclosed) information to the opponents? Or is the intent to encourage partner to bid 7/6 with a double fit and a spade void, should ops try to save? That doesn't seem like a good idea with this zero control hand.

Who's making? Who's saving? I don't know, but if I bid 6♣ *partner* might. Sure, so might the opponents, but when I bid 6♥ and they bid 6♠ (because 5♠ was making, clearly, and 6♥ is a good sac, and we're 20 down, so the odds say go), how much harder is it for partner to get his decision right than if I show him the massive two-suiter that I opened on? And imply that I might be a little light on defensive tricks (because I didn't give partner a chance to double)?

 

6♣ is *never* playing. It's just giving partner the tools to make the right decision over 6♠. After all, if -1200 in 5♠xx is "so bad", -1430 or -1660 in 6♠ is just as bad. I bid 6 because I think it's a save against -650/-680; I bid 6♣ because 7 will be a save against -1430, but not against +100/+200.

 

Yes, we need to find people who are willing to give up -6x0, to see if they're willing to give up -1200/-1600 when partner says "you opened, this is going down". I hope I'm not one of them.

 

Another question is whether this is a FP situation (almost certainly not), and if it is, is pass-and-pull is compared to the alternatives.

[bluejak]

After comments form lamford here, from a very senior TD I heard recently, and based on several letters to me, perhaps it is time I made a clear statement.

 

When giving an adjustment in an event in England or Wales, you give it under Laws 12C1A, 12C1B and 12C1C. It does not matter whether it is matchpoints, imps, point-a-board, hybrid [Pachabo] or aggregate. It does not matter whether it is a UI case, or MI, or Law 64C [a revoke] or any other Law which leads to an adjusted score. It does not matter whether it is a duplicate, a teams round robin, a league match, an inter-County event, an individual, knockout teams or a friendly match between two clubs.

 

This means that such scores may be weighted or split. Furthermore, the norm is for it to be weighted. It is [should be] unusual for it to be a single score.

 

It is my view, based on my reading of the Laws, that the same should apply to any other non-Law 12C1E jurisdiction, which I believe [though am not sure] applies to everywhere outside the ACBL. However, I think weighted scores have not been understood properly by some jurisdictions, which is why they are quite rare in some places, and in some places they may only be given by ACs, which is both illegal and ridiculous.

[lalldonn]

I was consulted when returning by car from losing a k/o match in Carlisle - perhaps I am the "leading TD" - and after ending the telephone call, I considered what I would bid and asked my three team-mates.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ directly over 5♠ and considered nothing else.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ over the redouble and considered nothing else.

 

I do not believe pass is an LA and no longer consider it close.

If you all would have done something else over 5♠ and are using that as part of the basis of your ruling, then you are not considering whether passing 5♠XX is an LA for a player who was willing to defend 5♠.

 

Given that this player was willing to defend 5♠, I think it's impossible to argue that it is illogical for this player to defend 5♠XX, especially given the conditions that the opponents are down in the match which make partner's double sounder than usual and the opponent's redouble less sound than usual.

[Trinidad]

The ruling is still a bit complex after that as there is surely a good chance that East will rip the redouble himself at least some proportion of the time. Also, I think South's redouble should probably be treated as a SEWOG as it's basically telling the opps to sacrifice in 6♥ which seems to be a serious error unrelated to the possible infraction of West taking advantage of the UI.

Usually, when we are talking about SEWoGs, we are discussing errors made after the infraction and not before. After all, errors made prior to the infraction already are supposed to have inflicted their own damage.

 

I would rule that pass is an LA for West and assign a weighted score based on what I think the probability is that East is running. If that probability is high, this may indeed lead to an overall result that is worse then the result NS would have gotten if South would have passed the double. In that case, it would be justified to call the redouble an error.

 

But is isn't a SEWoG in the sense of Law 12, since the damage that was done (going from a potential score of 5♠XX making or 6♥X-1 to a certain score of 6♥X-1 only) is 100% caused by the infraction.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Who's making?

 

Everyone, as it turns out! It is Lamford's misfortune that his teammates did not play well enough on the other 31 boards to make this hand not an issue. :(

[bluejak]

If you all would have done something else over 5♠ and are using that as part of the basis of your ruling, then you are not considering whether passing 5♠XX is an LA for a player who was willing to defend 5♠.

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

 

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

[lalldonn]

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

 

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

This is what you said.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ directly over 5♠ and considered nothing else.

 

All four of us would have bid 6♣ over the redouble and considered nothing else.

 

I do not believe pass is an LA and no longer consider it close.

I assumed that you made all these statements for a reason that was relevant to the ruling, and in particular that your conclusion was supported by the statements that preceeded it. If that is untrue then I appologize for my incorrect assumption.

[Trinidad]

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

 

Suffice it to say that yes, I am.

An interesting statement with no evidence to back it up.

 

Could you maybe expand a little and enlighten us why you think that someone who initially thought that passing 5♠ was best, would be so sure to bid 6♥/♣ after partner has doubled 5♠ (and a gambling opponent has redoubled) that not only

1) bidding 6♥/♣ is suddenly better than passing, but that

2) passing would be so absurd that it is not even an LA anymore?

 

I can think of arguments why bidding 6♥/♣ now is better than the round before, but these arguments are not so strong that it takes pass out of the picture as an LA.

 

Rik

[dwar0123]

Could you maybe expand a little and enlighten us why you think that someone who initially thought that passing 5♠ was best, would be so sure to bid 6♥/♣ after partner has doubled 5♠ (and a gambling opponent has redoubled) that not only

1) bidding 6♥/♣ is suddenly better than passing, but that

2) passing would be so absurd that it is not even an LA anymore?

 

As I understand the arguments that west gave herself.

 

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

 

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

 

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled

 

3. There is no way we can lose going down in 6♥

 

Passing when you think there is a small chance of losing a match vs bidding and having no chance of losing = not a LA

[lalldonn]

As I understand the arguments that west gave herself.

 

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

 

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

 

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled

 

3. There is no way we can lose going down in 6♥

 

Passing when you think there is a small chance of losing a match vs bidding and having no chance of losing = not a LA

Or west might realize that she has a partner who would have said to himself...

 

We are up 20 imps and are having an otherwise good set.

 

1. There is no way we can lose defending 5♠

 

2. There is a small chance we can lose defending 5♠ redoubled, which can only happen if I double

 

3. I am so sure doubling is right that I am going to double anyway

 

I mean, is west's argument that her partner does not exist? That seems to be what it amounts to.

[mrdct]

Usually, when we are talking about SEWoGs, we are discussing errors made after the infraction and not before. After all, errors made prior to the infraction already are supposed to have inflicted their own damage.

 

I would rule that pass is an LA for West and assign a weighted score based on what I think the probability is that East is running. If that probability is high, this may indeed lead to an overall result that is worse then the result NS would have gotten if South would have passed the double. In that case, it would be justified to call the redouble an error.

 

But is isn't a SEWoG in the sense of Law 12, since the damage that was done (going from a potential score of 5♠XX making or 6♥X-1 to a certain score of 6♥X-1 only) is 100% caused by the infraction.

 

Rik

The SEWoG provisions come into play after an "irregularity" not an "infraction". Reaching for the bidding box and not pulling something out of it is an irregularity. I'm still calling SEWoG on the redouble which imho is a ridiculous call virtually certain to push the opponents into a cheap 6♥ save.

[mrdct]

This means that such scores may be weighted or split. Furthermore, the norm is for it to be weighted. It is [should be] unusual for it to be a single score.

 

It is my view, based on my reading of the Laws, that the same should apply to any other non-Law 12C1E jurisdiction, which I believe [though am not sure] applies to everywhere outside the ACBL. However, I think weighted scores have not been understood properly by some jurisdictions, which is why they are quite rare in some places, and in some places they may only be given by ACs, which is both illegal and ridiculous.

The issuing of weighted scores (in jurisdictions that allow it) is a "may" requirement, not a "should", "shall" or "must". There is no obligation on TDs to issue weighted rulings and many (if not most) choose not to as they are a major hassle for scorers.

[blackshoe]

The issuing of weighted scores (in jurisdictions that allow it) is a "may" requirement, not a "should", "shall" or "must". There is no obligation on TDs to issue weighted rulings and many (if not most) choose not to as they are a major hassle for scorers.

Law 16C1:

{c} In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

{d} If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

The law does say "may", but it seems to me that when there are multiple potential results, a weighted score should be the norm. It also seems to me that failing to award a weighted score simply to make things easy for the scorer is not ruling in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws. Also, it seems to me, a scorer should be able to compute scores manually when necessary, even if he has a computer program to do it for him most of the time. Heck, somebody could write a simple program to compute weighted scores if the scoring program doesn't support them. Or one could use a spreadsheet.

[mrdct]

The law does say "may", but it seems to me that when there are multiple potential results, a weighted score should be the norm. It also seems to me that failing to award a weighted score simply to make things easy for the scorer is not ruling in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the laws. Also, it seems to me, a scorer should be able to compute scores manually when necessary, even if he has a computer program to do it for him most of the time. Heck, somebody could write a simple program to compute weighted scores if the scoring program doesn't support them. Or one could use a spreadsheet.

Who's to say what the spirit of the laws are? All we know is the laws of bridge make quite a big deal about the subtle differences between may, should, shall and must and the lawmakers intentionally chose "may" for the option to issue a weighted score. To my mind it is entirely at the TD's discretion and it's quite reasonable to take into account limitations of the scoring system, the completeness and accuracy of published results and the smooth running of an event in deciding whether or to issue a weighted score.

 

If the lawmakers had used "should" I would probably be agreeing with you, but "may" imparts "failure to do it is not wrong".

[blackshoe]

Who's to say what the spirit of the laws are? All we know is the laws of bridge make quite a big deal about the subtle differences between may, should, shall and must and the lawmakers intentionally chose "may" for the option to issue a weighted score. To my mind it is entirely at the TD's discretion and it's quite reasonable to take into account limitations of the scoring system, the completeness and accuracy of published results and the smooth running of an event in deciding whether or to issue a weighted score.

 

If the lawmakers had used "should" I would probably be agreeing with you, but "may" imparts "failure to do it is not wrong".

Hm. By this logic, if the TD fails to do something the laws say he "shall" do, the TD should receive a PP "more often than not". The fact that this conclusion makes no sense leads me to believe that the discussion of the meanings of those various words is directed at players, not TDs. I will stipulate, of course, that the law is not explicit on that point.