Was I constrained?

[nigel_k]

I'm sure an exception is possible but I would file that under self serving statements 99.999% of the time and lean towards 100%.

 

Trotting out this type of argument in a club game can undermine your own credibility in future situations (especially given your honest take on your 3♠ bid) that mean much more so I'm certain that you did the right thing.

 

Your opps might be sitting on that next committee.

When you look at the hand, isn't your first impression that the player is clearly walking the dog? Self-serving statements can be true and it's not as if you just have the rely on the player's word. There is the actual hand plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

 

If lalldonn bid 3♠ then 4♠ on that hand and I was on the committee I would not adjust even if he didn't give a reason, because it is overwhelmingly likely that he always intended to bid 4♠ and was hoping to go slow and buy it there.

[ggwhiz]

plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

 

If lalldonn bid 3♠ then 4♠ on that hand and I was on the committee I would not adjust even if he didn't give a reason,

 

 

I can't imagine anything worse for the game. You are obviously not qualified to sit on a committee involving lalldonn or any other "known" (to you) player.

[Trinidad]

I strongly disagree with Lalldonn and fully agree with richlp (#13).

 

The choice between bidding 3♠ to play and 4♠ to play is entirely different from the choice between bidding 4♠ and defending 4♣.

 

Suppose I let you chose between a Ferrari and a Corvette. You pick the Ferrari and I say: "Oh sorry, it is not available anymore. Instead you can chose between the Corvette and the Chevette."

 

Don't come and tell me that picking the Chevette is an LA because you didn't like the Corvette the first time.

 

I think it is crystal clear that declaring 4♠ is much better than defending 4♣. This is true regardless of whether you would have preferred to be in 3♠ or 4♠ the previous round.

 

Edit: Note that this does not depend on whether or not you intended to walk the dog.

 

Rik

[lalldonn]

Trinidad, your analogy is so extremely flawed in multiple ways that it's not even worth replying to. You aren't even mixing up apples and oranges, you are mixing up... I don't know, Corvettes and dog turds? Replace Ferrari in your example with "pepperoni pizza" and Chevette with "mushroom pizza" and you would be a lot closer to the mark, although it would still be flawed for other reasons.

 

As for the walking the dog argument, that is the player's to make, but directors and committees are properly trained to give little weight to such claims unless there is extremely strong evidence to the contrary. And as mentioned, it's not an argument barmar made.

 

Nigel, thanks for (I think) the vote of confidence, but I would be horribly insulted if you ruled in my favor on the basis that walking the dog on this hand is any sort of reasonable bridge strategy that would be attributed to me. I hope your reaction would be more like "come on lalldonn didn't really bid 3♠, stop yanking my chain and tell me who it really was" :)

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, your analogy is so extremely flawed in multiple ways that it's not even worth replying to.

Then either don't reply or do reply and give some arguments, but don't fake that you reply.

 

Rik

[nigel_k]

Nigel, thanks for (I think) the vote of confidence, but I would be horribly insulted if you ruled in my favor on the basis that walking the dog on this hand is any sort of reasonable bridge strategy that would be attributed to me. I hope your reaction would be more like "come on lalldonn didn't really bid 3♠, stop yanking my chain and tell me who it really was" :)

Don't fight the hypothetical. You can be insulted because I concluded you were walking the dog, or you can be insulted because I concluded you really didn't want to bid beyond 3♠. Take your pick. Ok maybe you pulled the wrong bidding card. But in that case you still get to bid 4♠ next time.

[blackshoe]

This is strange. Lalldonn's is the same point made by Corgi, way back in #3. Is this the same Blackshoe who quoted it and disagreed in #4?

Yes. Am I not permitted to change my mind? Put it another way: having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

[gnasher]

As for the walking the dog argument, that is the player's to make, but directors and committees are properly trained to give little weight to such claims unless there is extremely strong evidence to the contrary.

 

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

[aguahombre]

Yes. Am I not permitted to change my mind? Put it another way: having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

Of course not. I just don't remember having ever quoted a very short sentence and then claiming I missed it. No big deal.

[lalldonn]

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees:

The committee should be prepared to deal with self-serving testimony. The testimony usually is relevant and should be admitted, but in such cases the committee should not give it any significant weight. The reason is the potential bias by players having a direct interest in the committee deciding matters in a particular way.

In my personal opinion that sounds quite proper. The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest". People in general aren't at all good at gauging the honesty of other people, and I certainly don't trust directors or bridge committees to do it accurately.

[aguahombre]

The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest".

Heh. We could have a lot of fun with that phrasing.

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees:

 

In my personal opinion that sounds quite proper. The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest". People in general aren't at all good at gauging the honesty of other people, and I certainly don't trust directors or bridge committees to do it accurately.

The bottom line is that in making rulings, directors and committees are expected, even required, to use their judgment. That includes judgment of the honesty of the players involved. Some may not like that, but that's the way it is.

[lalldonn]

The bottom line is that in making rulings, directors and committees are expected, even required, to use their judgment. That includes judgment of the honesty of the players involved. Some may not like that, but that's the way it is.

That doesn't make it desirable, just sometimes necessary. In the particular hypothetical under discussion (a player claims he was bidding 3♠ as an attempt to 'walk to dog' and always planning on bidding 4♠ next) they are specifically instructed to not give that claim significant weight.

[blackshoe]

That doesn't make it desirable, just sometimes necessary. In the particular hypothetical under discussion (a player claims he was bidding 3♠ as an attempt to 'walk to dog' and always planning on bidding 4♠ next) they are specifically instructed to not give that claim significant weight.

I made no comment as to desirability or lack thereof. As for your second sentence, reference please?

[lalldonn]

I made no comment as to desirability or lack thereof.

Well that's what we were discussing. If you are changing the topic I'm not all that interested in participating.

[aguahombre]

As for your second sentence, reference please?

He already did that. ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees. Exact phrase, "significant weight".

[ggwhiz]

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

 

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

 

This thread needs a theme song.

 

My link

[aguahombre]

You would be just fine, Whiz. The amount of ink a pair gets might (or might not) be on a level with their repute. But, if it is, the hypothetical pair in that situation would be thinking as Josh does --or, at least would not relish the ink they would get in the Casebook write-up.

 

If they opposed you in committee, it would be on some other basis than defending the indefensible.

[ggwhiz]

You would be just fine, Whiz.

 

Not if a few posters on this thread were on the committee. As for the indefensible hypothetically there can be some real close judgement calls that even the best get wrong once in a while.

 

I know I would be fine but only because of the Handbook guidlines and the laws.

[nigel_k]

I can't imagine anything worse for the game. You are obviously not qualified to sit on a committee involving lalldonn or any other "known" (to you) player.

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

The laws specifically provide that what is a logical alternative depends on the class of player involved. If you managed to reach the level of a top expert and won world and national championships without anybody in the event knowing who you are, then I agree this provision in the laws could be a problem for you.

[blackshoe]

<puts head in hands>

 

Discuss whatever you like. Apparently I'm just confusing things, so I'll go away now.

[ggwhiz]

The laws specifically provide that what is a logical alternative depends on the class of player involved. If you managed to aspire to or reach the level of a top expert and be in contention to win having not yet won a world or national championships without anybody in the event knowing who you are stay tuned, then I agree this provision in the laws could be a problem for you.

[gnasher]

So I'm at an NABC, nobody knows me and I go to committee and I'm up against the pair that averages 6 full page articles in the Bulletin every year. All the guidlines and laws try to do is level the playing field cause even the best are not perfect.

There's no reason to believe you're lying, so the assumption should be that you're telling the truth. I just don't understand the ACBL's position, which appears to assume that everyone is dishonest.

 

By the way, I've certainly had the experience of being an unknown player at an NABC, making self-serving testimony, and being believed. Maybe I was just lucky to come across a director who believes in using his judgement. Or maybe it helps to have a funny accent.

[barmar]

having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

Isn't that what I did when I let my choice on the 2nd round affect my later action? :)

[barmar]

When you look at the hand, isn't your first impression that the player is clearly walking the dog? Self-serving statements can be true and it's not as if you just have the rely on the player's word. There is the actual hand plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

My feeling is that when UI is involved, it's harder to give the player the benefit of the doubt like this. If the action is consistent with both walking the dog and taking advantage of the UI, we may have to the latter requires us to adjust (assuming the walk is successful).