What's suggested?

[iviehoff]

You lost me there.

 

1) How can one say what the ethical action is without seeing the hand? Pass may not even be a LA.

I was setting that out as a definition of the situation I was examining.

[iviehoff]

I don't understand. If 6H has a scoring advantage over pass, it's suggested over pass, isn't it?

Quite so, that's the point I'm making: that suffices to make it illegal. The reason it is non-obvious to some is that it need not suggested over 4H, the action you would have chosen without the uI. Plainly you already understood this, but it was not obvious from the way the previous person described it.

[fbuijsen]

If you say so. I must admit from my own experience I'm much more likely to find it tricky to decide between a constructive and an invitational raise than I am between an invitational raise and a GF one.

 

My experience is similar. My regular partner is an optimistic bidder. When he makes some kind of limit raise after a long tank, he has convinced himself to make a slight (or sometimes not so slight) overbid the vast majority of the time.

[lamford]

Although several people suggested passing was not absurd, no one actually passed. It registered a grand total of 0% of the votes. So I disallow pass immediately.

As far as I could see there was no poll, and only about 15 separate views, if you ignore ones drifting to discussions about Donald Duck. A significant number of those seriously considered Pass, and the normal procedure is to assume that in a big enough poll some would select it, as happened after you posted. Only about half indicated what they would actually choose. I agree with JLOGIC that Pass is poor, but I would still include it as an LA based on that thread.

 

But even if nobody chose it nor mentioned it, as was the case with 5C, it would not be an infraction to select it, unless it was demonstrably suggested by the UI. The infraction is to choose from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested. I believe there is yet another WBFLC pronouncement that it is an infraction to choose a non-LA if it is likely to do better than any of the LAs. For you to disallow pass you would have to decide that it demonstrably suggested by the BIT. You assume it is an LA before deciding that as the bid chosen is always deemed to be an LA.

[blackshoe]

…the bid chosen is always deemed to be an LA.

Because the law's phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". At least, that's what Grattan Endicott told me well before the 2007 laws were promulgated. I would have thought that if that's what was meant, the drafting committee would have changed the wording, but obviously they didn't. :blink:

[Cascade]

Most players decide quickly between 2H and 3H and think somewhat longer between 3H and a GF bid.

 

In general I don't agree with this type of reasoning.

 

In particular, we don't care what everyone else does we care what this particular player does. To me it seems clearly wrong to deduce that this particular hesitation suggests something in particular because other hesitations would suggest that.

[gordontd]

A significant number of those seriously considered Pass, and the normal procedure is to assume that in a big enough poll some would select it

I'd like to take issue with this assertion. Were it true, there would be no need for the second requirement in the law.

[Vampyr]

it would not be an infraction to select it, unless it was demonstrably suggested by the UI. The infraction is to choose from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested.

 

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

[gwnn]

In general I don't agree with this type of reasoning.

 

In particular, we don't care what everyone else does we care what this particular player does. To me it seems clearly wrong to deduce that this particular hesitation suggests something in particular because other hesitations would suggest that.

I wouldn't agree with this type of reasoning either unconditionally, but I thought directors need to judge on the balance of probabilities, based on the available information. They need not prove logical truths, or even "beyond a reasonable a doubt."

[barmar]

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

Maybe because it's hard to understand how to apply it properly. Almost anything "could be", in real life we generally only concern ourselves with what "is" or "is likely" (religion being the notable exception).

[campboy]

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

We don't, really. If an action is demonstrably suggested to us, then it could have been demonstrably suggested to the player. It is not necessarily the case that it was suggested to the player. This is a typical "could have known" style situation of the laws emphasising that an adjusted score is not an accusation.

[aguahombre]

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

Because they would like to remember it as "demonstrably could have been suggested".

[lamford]

I'd like to take issue with this assertion. Were it true, there would be no need for the second requirement in the law.

The Law says: "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."

 

So, it is wrong to reject a call as an LA because nobody in a small poll actually selects it, as the only requirement is that the TD judges that some might select it. (My emphasis). If a call is given serious consideration, then, ipso facto, it will normally be judged that some might select it, so, in practice, the second requirement in the Law will always be met if the first is.

 

In the other thread, it seemed likely from the comments that some of those who mentioned Pass as an option "might select it". Whether they did so is therefore not the test. It does not say "did select it".

[aguahombre]

The Law says: "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."

 

So, it is wrong to reject a call as an LA because nobody in a small poll actually selects it, as the only requirement is that the TD judges that some might select it. (My emphasis). If a call is given serious consideration, then, ipso facto, it will normally be judged that some might select it, so, in practice, the second requirement in the Law will always be met if the first is.

It might frighten you that I agree. If something is seriously considered, there should be a presumption it might have been selected. ACBL bashers take note: there is ill-conceived wording in laws all over.

[gnasher]

The Law says: "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."

 

So, it is wrong to reject a call as an LA because nobody in a small poll actually selects it, as the only requirement is that the TD judges that some might select it. (My emphasis). If a call is given serious consideration, then, ipso facto, it will normally be judged that some might select it, so, in practice, the second requirement in the Law will always be met if the first is.

 

In the other thread, it seemed likely from the comments that some of those who mentioned Pass as an option "might select it". Whether they did so is therefore not the test. It does not say "did select it".

I think that the wording is intended to cater for an action which would be seriously considered, but unanimously rejected as a result of this consideration. Sometimes you have to consider an action in order to conclude that it's wrong. This occurs in the play more often in the bidding, but it can occur with a bidding decision that lends itself to analysis rather than judgement.

[gnasher]

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

I don't forget it, but I intentionally disregard the world "could", because I have no idea what the sentence as written is supposed to mean.

[barmar]

The point of polling is that we recognize that the TD may not be able to determine accurately what a particular class of players might do. The hope is that the answers to the poll will fill in this gap. The TD is certainly allowed to use his judgement in deciding what people might do, but if he bothers to take the poll it seems like he should give the results significant weight. If no one actually chooses an action, that's a strong suggestion that none might. But if the poll is small, it's certainly not definitive.

[nige1]

Because the law's phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". At least, that's what Grattan Endicott told me well before the 2007 laws were promulgated. I would have thought that if that's what was meant, the drafting committee would have changed the wording, and but obviously they didn't. :blink:

I don't forget it, but I intentionally disregard the world "could", because I have no idea what the sentence as written is supposed to mean.

IMO, currently, rule-makers lean towards complexity and sophistication. When they come to prefer simplicity and clarity they may instead write something like "the partner should not choose an action if another plausible action is less suggested by the extraneous information".

[mycroft]

Hahahahahaha you are so funny.

 

If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules, or, maybe, the Comprehensive Rules of M:tG (not the card rulings, that's a separate issue).

 

The problem with the current Law book is that it's nowhere near complex nor sophisticated enough, and as such there are several edge cases that are not covered, and some that are only explained through case law - which is not formally recorded (as in the Laws of Golf, for instance). Some of that some of the NBOs are doing; some of it some are not.

 

This particular case is a result of "if it hesitates, shoot it". We've gone from reasonably to demonstrably suggested, and we've gone to this ACBL definition of LA from no definition (which I will realize damages other NBOs who had used a different LA definition). I think it's right to not have a number defined (remember all the arguments years ago about whether someone was arguing that the suggested action was 75% without the UI, and therefore should be allowed, instead of "carefully attempting to avoid" using the information?); I think the guidelines should be reasonable, and should be read as if both clauses were relevant (rather than attempting to make one or the other superfluous).

 

We also had the argument in the ACBL casebooks that zero is "some number". That got the answer it deserved.

 

I am quite certain that there are calls that "everybody" would have to think about before rejecting, but that "everybody" would reject. Can't bring one to mind at the moment, of course.

 

I'm not suggesting that "nobody in the poll did it, so 'some number' is invalidated"; but I am saying that if nobody in the poll did it, and it was a reasonable poll, the TD had better be convinced that people would take it if she wants to argue it's still a LA (of the "wow, I can't believe nobody took it. Can I book a money game against these guys?" variety). It may still be overturned on appeal, of course.

[aguahombre]

If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules,

Is "AH" short for Aguahombre, or for the more common term? :rolleyes: Or both.

[blackshoe]

Avalon Hill, I think. A wargame publisher.

[lamford]

I think that the wording is intended to cater for an action which would be seriously considered, but unanimously rejected as a result of this consideration.

If the wording was "of whom it is judged some would select it", I would agree with you. But the wording is "of whom it is judged some might select it". If they give the call "serious consideration", then there must be a chance, however small, that they might select it. I think the wording should be "of whom it is judged some would select it", but that is a separate matter.

[nige1]

Hahahahahaha you are so funny. If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules, or, maybe, the Comprehensive Rules of M:tG (not the card rulings, that's a separate issue). The problem with the current Law book is that it's nowhere near complex nor sophisticated enough, and as such there are several edge cases that are not covered, and some that are only explained through case law - which is not formally recorded (as in the Laws of Golf, for instance). Some of that some of the NBOs are doing; some of it some are not.

Players like me would prefer rules simple enough for us to understand although I accept that rule-makers and directors may share mycrofts view that the current Law book isn't complex or sophisticated enough. We would all probably agree with mycroft, however, that some appeals-decisions should be recognised as paradigms for case-law.

[Vampyr]

Players like me would prefer rules simple enough for us to understand although I accept that rule-makers and directors may share mycrofts view that the current Law book isn't complex or sophisticated enough.

Well. It is clear that many of the current Laws are ambiguous or incomplete. What everyone would like is to have far fewer discussions about how to interpret and apply the Laws. I am guessing that in mycroft's opinion, a book that sensibly covers virtually all cases would be more complex and sophisticated. This may be the case, depending on how you look at it, since more detail could be considered more complex, and non-ambiguous language that says what it means, rather than the opposite, could be considered more sophisticated.

[aguahombre]

What color would that book be?