Would you Move?

[gnasher]

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that.

That doesn't make 4NT illegal. If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

 

You seem to be arguing a point that nearly everyone agrees with: if pass is an LA, he is required to choose that. The key question, however, is whether pass is an LA.

 

In my view, it's not. After your original post, I believed that the LAs were 4♥ and 4NT. After you subsequently told us that 4♥ wouldn't allow us to stop in 4NT, that made 4♥ not an LA. That leaves one LA, which is 4NT.

Edited October 22, 2012 by gnasher

[gordontd]

It is irrelevant that some eminent people such as gnasher and wank think it is automatic to move. I am told that both winners of the A final at Stratford would choose Pass.

 

Why is it irrelevant what gnasher & wank think, but relevant what (you say) two other players think?

 

The AC should poll at least 10 players of comparable standard,

 

I do not know where you find this law or regulation, nor do I think it would be a good one.

[lamford]

So what? If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

 

In my view, it's not.

When I am polled about an LA, I often think there is only one LA. However, when I learn that the requisite minimum would choose a different call, I accept that there is more than one LA. On this hand the LAs are Pass, 4D, 4H and 4NT. They all fulfill the criteria that a significant number would consider the bid and at least some would select it. Both here and those polled at Stratford. I originally thought as you did, but as soon as I found a "significant number of peers" selecting Pass, I immediately rethought the problem. I totally agree 4H is the best bid without the UI. But I am also certain that Pass is an LA under the definition of it. Now it may be that that definition is wrong, and the correct figure is the old 30%. But we are stuck with the new figure which I understand is much lower.

[gordontd]

The winners of the pairs here both passed when polled. Neither they nor I were involved with the hand.

They were not polled - at least not by the TDs or AC. One of them was asked to be an appeals consultant, and the other was sitting at the same table so presumably contributed to the discussion. I do not know what they said, except that the consultation took some time and the appellant decided to appeal. It is because we do not know what either party says in these consultations that ACs are not supposed to be told, nor to take into account, whether or not an appeals advisor has been consulted.

 

It sounds as though you know a lot more about this than any TDs or AC members.

[lamford]

Why is it irrelevant what gnasher & wank think, but relevant what (you say) two other players think?

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious. And "less relevant" would have been better. I was told by the appellant that the two other players consulted would have passed, so that is "third-hand" and of less value. I presume the TDs polled among themselves and did not consider Pass an LA either. You do not think it is right to poll 10 or so players. I am aware that there is no regulation on how to establish what peers would do, and that is my opinion. I can see no other way to establish what a significant number of the player's peers would consider.

 

And I certainly do not know more about it than the AC or TDs. Less in fact; I did not know that one of the two I mentioned had been an appeals consultant. And, in this example, "what they said" would have been the auction with the BIT. "Res ipsa loquitur" as they say in Eboracum.

 

I only know what I was told by the appellant, and made it clear earlier that the facts were not verified. If you have the AC form, you can clarify or correct any wrong statements on here.

[gordontd]

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious.

 

You cannot have a "some" without having a class of players "of whom...". If they belong in that class of players, then they are not irrelevant.

[campboy]

Because they are not the "some" who would seriously consider Pass or select it; they are the many who consider moving on obvious.

Yes, but how many the many are is relevant. You also need "a significant proportion" to seriously consider pass, and whether four players who considered pass is a significant proportion depends on how many it's out of.

 

FWIW I would not consider passing either.

[lamford]

That doesn't make 4NT illegal. If there is only one LA, North is entitled to choose it, regardless of the UI. The laws don't require North to choose an action which is not an LA.

That is debatable as well. Law 16B says: "<snip> the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

This does not remove the obligation under 73C to "carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI".

If Law 16B said (as I think it should say): "<snip> the partner must choose from among logical alternatives one that could not demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.", then you would be right, if 4NT was the only LA.

We know (from the UI) that all LAs other than Pass will get partner to bid 6D. Effectively they are bidding 6D for him.

[lamford]

Yes, but how many the many are is relevant. You also need "a significant proportion" to seriously consider pass, and whether four players who considered pass is a significant proportion depends on how many it's out of.

 

FWIW I would not consider passing either.

Yes I agree that all opinions are relevant, and my choice of words was poor. The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA, they should be stating that they would always bid on, and would not consider anything else. Whether or not a bid is an LA depends on whether "some" would seriously consider it and select it, not whether the majority consider(s) it an LA.

[c_corgi]

...The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA...

 

I don't see why not: it is equivalent to saying: "If pass was an LA for this player, then I am not his peer and should not have been polled".

[lamford]

I don't see why not: it is equivalent to saying: "If pass was an LA for this player, then I am not his peer and should not have been polled".

Except he didn't pass. You might say "If someone bid this way so far then I am not his peer", however. They did not say that.

[gordontd]

You do not think it is right to poll 10 or so players. I am aware that there is no regulation on how to establish what peers would do, and that is my opinion. I can see no other way to establish what a significant number of the player's peers would consider.

I do not think it wrong to poll 10 players, but I would regard it impractical to require it of ACs or TDs. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) you did this in the case at Brighton where you chaired an appeals committee for me, and I do not think you needed to, since it was so blindingly obvious that even one of the appellants had told me he agreed with the ruling.

 

There is also the question of who belongs to the "class of players" in question, and one might argue that the winners of the pairs do not. I think I am probably a pretty close match for the players, being (I think) of the same rank and experience, and playing the methods in question with all my most regular partners.

[gordontd]

The point I was making was that those polled should not be offering the opinion that Pass is not an LA, they should be stating that they would always bid on, and would not consider anything else. Whether or not a bid is an LA depends on whether "some" would seriously consider it and select it, not whether the majority consider(s) it an LA.

You seem to think that none of us can have any idea how others would behave in a given situation. I do not think this is true, and would probably have to stop directing if I did.

[lamford]

I do not think it wrong to poll 10 players, but I would regard it impractical to require it of ACs or TDs. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) you did this in the case at Brighton where you chaired an appeals committee for me, and I do not think you needed to, since it was so blindingly obvious that even one of the appellants had told me he agreed with the ruling.

 

There is also the question of who belongs to the "class of players" in question, and one might argue that the winners of the pairs do not. I think I am probably a pretty close match for the players, being (I think) of the same rank and experience, and playing the methods in question with all my most regular partners.

I agree it is not practical for the AC to poll any players at all - indeed I did not in the one I chaired; they are generally giving up some of their dinner break (or worse still, valuable drinking time) to conduct the appeal. If there is time, the TD should poll players of similar strength - ideally 10, but maybe 4 or 5 in practice. UI cases are the majority of appeals - over half I think of the AC booklets. Those polled can be told the methods and imagine they are playing them. This should be presented as evidence to the AC. Law 85 provides for the TD to "determine" the facts, and it is reasonable that this includes establishing the LAs.

 

I would agree that you would have been an ideal pollee (although I do not even know the side who broke tempo!), as would at least some of the other TDs. There was a long gap between the original ruling and the appeal result (the appeal held up play for nine minutes at the start of the final). If the TD had presented a poll to the AC stating that ten were polled and all ten moved on and only one seriously considered passing, then that would have reduced the time the AC needed to take. I personally think that retaining a deposit after a "cuddly" has advised the appellant to appeal is always wrong, and, if it happened in, say, the financial world would lead to a successful claim of negligent advice. It is only because the scale is so small that it does not matter much. However, it can only be bad for bridge to behave in this way.

 

My guess is that a poll would have produced something like seven bids and three passes. And I would have been a bidder. But the correct ruling was to adjust.

[lamford]

You seem to think that none of us can have any idea how others would behave in a given situation. I do not think this is true, and would probably have to stop directing if I did.

If the TDs consult only among themselves, then they have to decide how others would act. The sample is otherwise not large enough. So, yes, you are right to think on behalf of others in that situation. Here those "polled" were asked what they would seriously consider and what they would bid. Enough answered so that they do not need to speak for someone else! For what it is worth, I polled five at Stratford. Three would have bid on and two would have passed. All five were in one of the finals - although with sadly dwindling numbers that is being damned with faint praise.

[gnasher]

paulg and nigel_k considered pass an LA, and Trinidad would select it at matchpoints. campboy did not choose a camp. Nigel_K "slightly prefers 4H". Most do not consider Pass an LA, say 8 people.

Actually, Trinidad only said that he leant towards pass. I agree that this probably meets the condition in the laws that "some might choose it", but I'm not sure that is true if you interpret the law as the EBU does, which is that "more than just an isolated exception" "would actually choose it".

Edited October 22, 2012 by gnasher

[Cyberyeti]

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands as I know he's aceless. Partner may not realise xx, KJxxx, KQx, Kxx is a great hand the way I've bid but KJ10, Kxxx, Qxx, KJ10 isn't. If you don't open the first one 1N, make curly suits 4-4 and you'll still make 6 most of the time.

 

I haven't made any sort of slam try yet, I will do so with 4♣ and see if partner goes beyond 4♦.

 

Pass is not an option for me.

[lamford]

Actually, Trinidad only said that he leant towards pass. I agree that this probably meets the condition in the laws that "some might choose it", but I'm not sure that is true if you interpret the law as the EBU does, which is that "more than just an isolated exception" "would actually choose it".

But nigel_k might presumably also choose pass as well, if he only "slightly prefers 4H". Perhaps we should have single transferable votes as the sample size is generally small. And Vampyr would actually choose Pass, even though she does not make this clear. And I would choose Pass now, even though I think it is a poor bid, as I consider it an LA based on the views of others.

[gordontd]

I would choose Pass now, even though I think it is a poor bid, as I consider it an LA based on the views of others.

By this logic, we will soon be of the opinion that bidding is not an LA!

[gnasher]

I would choose Pass now, even though I think it is a poor bid, as I consider it an LA based on the views of others.

 

The phrases "would be given serious consideration" and "might select it" in the laws obviously refer to what one would do if unconstrained by UI. Otherwise, as Gordon says, we would reach the absurd conclusion that pass was the only LA.

[lamford]

By this logic, we will soon be of the opinion that bidding is not an LA!

Not at all, and the same response to gnasher. The word "now" was the clue to the correct meaning. We are unable to conduct a poll before we bid - although I was told by mgoetze that a fun bridge event in Germany includes a "phone a friend" and "ask the audience" option! I stated that I would bid given it as a problem without UI. If I had the results of this poll (or just the results of those I polled at Stratford), then I would pass as I would now know that Pass seemed to be an LA.

 

At the table, my partner and I bid, poorly: 1NT - 2C - 2D - 3D - 3NT - Pass. 3D was a natural slam try here. I will not say which of us bid 3NT. The 3NT bidder was hampered by the agreement that a raise to 4D would be RKCB.

 

So there is no contradiction whatsoever in choosing to bid at the table, believing Pass not to be an LA, and adjusting to "Pass" (in a UI ruling) after a poll is conducted. Are you saying that if virtually the exact hand occurred tomorrow, with the same UI, you would still move?

[RMB1]

I was also told by the appellant that the AC were close to retaining his deposit! (Perhaps TDs present at Stratford can confirm or deny any of these facts).

 

+

[gordontd]

So there is no contradiction whatsoever in choosing to bid at the table, believing Pass not to be an LA, and adjusting to "Pass" (in a UI ruling) after a poll is conducted.

No, there isn't, but you were saying that you would give as an answer to the question of what you would do at the table, that which you believe to have subsequently been indicated by others as what they would do.

 

This reminds me of a student politician I knew who would only support policies that he believed were supported by the majority of the electorate.

[lamford]

No, there isn't, but you were saying that you would give as an answer to the question of what you would do at the table, that which you believe to have subsequently been indicated by others as what they would do.

 

This reminds me of a student politician I knew who would only support policies that he believed were supported by the majority of the electorate.

The difference is that I now know (or believe) Pass to be an LA, and have to select it regardless of whether I think it is the best bid. I am answering the question with extra information.

 

The student politician is not obliged to believe that the majority is correct, but can choose to do so without breaking the law. Parliament does not support capital punishment although 54% of the country supports it. There are those that want a referendum and for the majority view to prevail. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

 

And I think we are drifting off-topic. Is there any more information on the facts of the appeal?

[Trinidad]

I find this discussion rather fruitless. What you do depends entirely on what you have shown so far.

 

For some, e.g. gwnn, the auction up to 3♠ merely shows game going values. In that case, it is obvious that you have to make some kind of slam try and pass would never, ever be an LA.

 

In the style that I am used to, the auction up to 3♠ shows mild slam interest. The 1NT opener is allowed to take the initiative and force to slam if he has a suitable hand. I have written (or intended to write) that I could go either way, at MPs, using that style, and lean towards pass. That means that my opinion is that pass is an LA if NS would play that style.

 

It is not a good idea to start adding the votes from the proponents of each style, evaluate the numbers and state something to the effect of: "x % consider pass and y % would actually pass, there for pass is/isn't an LA.".

 

It is much better to just ask NS what North has shown in the auction.

 

If NS answer that it implies slam interest, then consider it as such and throw out all the votes of people who think that North has merely shown game going values. You will be stuck with my vote. ;)

If NS answer that it merely shows game going values, then consider it as such and throw out all the votes of people who think that North has implied slam interest. Please discard my opinion and don't misuse it for a purpose that it wasn't intended for.

 

Rik