Action over 1NT?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq7hkq85dkj63c84&w=s632h4da7542cak62&n=sa98hj96dt98ct975&e=sjt54hat732dqcqj3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(12-14)p(see%20comment%20below)p2d(Asptro)p3sppp]399|300| Regional Swiss Teams. This was the full hand:

Before South opened, West had taken hold of and lifted some cards in the bidding box, but not withdrawn them. I was called at this point. I decided that no call had been made, and the auction should proceed with the knowledge that West has an opening bid unauthorized to East, who must be careful to avoid using this information to his advantage. I told NS to call me back at the end of play if they thought they might have been damaged, or if they were unsure.

EW called me back and told me the auction, and that West had made nine tricks after North led a club. What do you think about this one?

[/hv]

IMO

• If you anchor to the weaker suit then LAs are 2♦ = 10, 2♥ = 8, Pass = 7, 2♣ = 6.
• Partner's attempt to bid out of turn is UI to you.
• Pollees confirm that the UI suggests bidding rather than passing (although, admittedly, bidding risks getting too high).
• It might be "obvious" to lead a trump but failure to do so isn't a serious error (as defined by the rules).

[VixTD]

It is when a serious error is not related to the infraction that it may lead to the NOS losing restitution for the damage it caused.

Yes, I worded that badly, I mean if it were classed as a serious error (for a better player, for instance) it could have warranted application of law 12C1(b) because it was unrelated to the infraction.

[gnasher]

IMO

• If you anchor to the weaker suit then LAs are 2♦ = 10, 2♥ = 8, Pass = 7, 2♣ = 6.

 

You have four spades and five hearts. You have a bid which shows four spades and five hearts. It's not remotely logical to make a bid that shows five spades and four hearts, or a bid that shows a one-suiter in hearts.

[nige1]

You have four spades and five hearts. You have a bid which shows four spades and five hearts. It's not remotely logical to make a bid that shows five spades and four hearts, or a bid that shows a one-suiter in hearts.

IMO, an LA need not be the most logical call. In a strict sense, you might expect there to be only one logical call. e.g. here, pass might be the only logical call, for jallerton. But ordinary players like the pollees and myself may consider other calls. Such calls might seem ludicrous to gnasher but "logical" to our feeble minds.

[gnasher]

IMO, an LA need not be the most logical call.

That's quite true. In fact, it doesn't have to be logical at all. It merely has to pass the test "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it".

 

In a strict sense, you might expect there to be only one logical call. e.g. here, pass might be the only logical call, for jallerton. But ordinary players like the pollees and myself may consider other calls. Such calls might seem ludicrous to gnasher but "logical" to our feeble minds.

That's not sufficient to make it a logical alternative. For 2♣ or 2♥ to be an LA, there has to be a possibility that they'd actually bid it, knowing that there was an alternative call which accurately describes your hand. So, might you choose 2♣ or 2♥? If not, do you know anyone who might?

 

[Edited to the extent that it's unrecognisable as the child of the earlier post.]

Edited May 16, 2014 by gnasher

[nige1]

That's not sufficient to make it a logical alternative. For 2♣ or 2♥ to be an LA, there has to be a possibility that they'd actually bid it, knowing that there was an alternative call which accurately describes your hand. So, might you choose 2♣ or 2♥? If not, do you know anyone who might?

I chose 2♦. I judged that some might choose other calls. Hence, I deemed them LAs. But I didn't conduct a poll. It seems that the director gave pollees a choice between passing and bidding.

 

It's hard to judge LAs. In Magazine bidding competitions, some expert panellists choose actions that are hard to understand.

 

In any case, others have pointed out that the definition of LA should be widened to include seemingly illogical alternatives.

 

For example, here, nobody suggested double as an LA. Had double been chosen, however, the director might treat it as an "LA" suggested by partner's bidding-box performance.

[jallerton]

In my poll I asked players what they would bid with the East hand, and once they had answered, whether they thought bidding was suggested over passing by the knowledge that partner had an opening bid. (They were the sort of people who would know what this meant.) I wasn't convinced that it was, but the players I consulted were. I suppose it depends how likely partner is to make a jump or forcing response. I'm not quite sure why he did on the actual hand, I wondered whether it was an odd attempt to hang his own side after committing an infraction.

 

I like your procedure. My previous reply said what the UI suggested to me, but for this ruling, you as TD have to decide what the UI suggested to this particular East player.

 

South would do better to spend his time asking North why he had failed to make the obvious trump lead.

 

That was so bad I considered it might be classed as a serious error, but NS were not strong players, and in any case it's not related to the infraction.

 

I consider the failure to find the trump lead to be an error, but it is nowhere close to being a serious error. Serious errors are things like revokes and

"blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count." (to quote the White Book).

[jallerton]

You have four spades and five hearts. You have a bid which shows four spades and five hearts. It's not remotely logical to make a bid that shows five spades and four hearts, or a bid that shows a one-suiter in hearts.

 

You must be used to Nigel's marking scheme by now. Nigel always gives high marks to his 2nd, 3rd (and 4th) choices, trying to simulate the marks that might be awarded in a magazine problem. He's not as far out as you think, because in magazine panels the respondents often haven't read the system and tend to guess what the system is or even just assume that their own favourite system is in use.

 

Of course, I agree that when assessing logical alternatives we need to know the player's knowledge of the methods in use.

[barmar]

In any case, others have pointed out that the definition of LA should be widened to include seemingly illogical alternatives.

 

For example, here, nobody suggested double as an LA. Had double been chosen, however, the director might treat it as an "LA" suggested by partner's bidding-box performance.

 

Regulators declared that the action chosen by the player in question is always considered an LA mainly to prevent them from using random or gambling bids as a loophole in the UI laws. "But the bid I chose wasn't even an LA, so how could I have violated the law against choosing amongst LAs?"

[blackshoe]

If a player chooses a completely off the wall call, isn't that a psych? Aren't psychs legal, even in the presence of UI? (I don't see how UI "demonstrably could suggest" a psych/)

 

Absent my knowledge of some of the idiosyncrasies (like this one) of the lawmakers, I would (and did, on first reading years ago) assume that "from among logical alternatives" means exactly what it says. The lawmakers have had ample opportunity to change the wording if they intended some other meaning. Instead they've applied this "fudge". Pfui. They should get their act together.

[gnasher]

If a player chooses a completely off the wall call, isn't that a psych? Aren't psychs legal, even in the presence of UI?

Not if the psych is suggested by the UI.

 

(I don't see how UI "demonstrably could suggest" a psych/)

Why not? If partner gives you the UI that he has a weak hand with a lot of hearts and short spades, that demonstrably suggests psyching a spade bid.

[blackshoe]

Not if the psych is suggested by the UI.

 

 

Why not? If partner gives you the UI that he has a weak hand with a lot of hearts and short spades, that demonstrably suggests psyching a spade bid.

Not to me it doesn't. What's your logic?

[nige1]

Regulators declared that the action chosen by the player in question is always considered an LA mainly to prevent them from using random or gambling bids as a loophole in the UI laws. "But the bid I chose wasn't even an LA, so how could I have violated the law against choosing amongst LAs?"

Excellent, Barmar :) Is this an amendment to the Law or is it a matter of local regulation? Please supply a reference/link.

[blackshoe]

Excellent, Barmar :) Is this an amendment to the Law or is it a matter of local regulation? Please supply a reference/link.

I suspect it is neither, but perhaps Barry has access to information which I do not. It is, however, an interpretation given to me by Grattan Endicott on either blml or rgb some years ago.

[gnasher]

Excellent, Barmar :) Is this an amendment to the Law or is it a matter of local regulation? Please supply a reference/link.

It's in a WBFLC minute from Philadelphia in 2010:

 

http://www.bridge-verband.de/regelseite/doku.php?id=regelseite:wbflc_philadelphia

 

Item 3.

[gnasher]

Not to me it doesn't. What's your logic?

Most people's methods aren't well suited to finding a spade fit after one of the opponents has bad spades. If you know that the opponents are likely to have 4♠ on, bidding spades may make that harder for them to reach it. If that knowledge derives from UI, the UI demonstrably suggests psyching a spade bid.

[nige1]

It's in a WBFLC minute from Philadelphia in 2010: http://www.bridge-ve...lc_philadelphia Item 3.

Thanks, Gnasher.

There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.Law 16B1

It's hard to understand the need for any exception. Presumably the EBU White Book refers to this minute.

 

Of course, the gist of this should have been incorporated, in place, into an on-line version of the law-book :)

[barmar]

It's in a WBFLC minute from Philadelphia in 2010:

 

http://www.bridge-ve...lc_philadelphia

 

Item 3.

 

Although it contradicts my rationale. It says:

An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.

So if you make a totally off-the-wall bid, it's still not an LA. You might not be in violation of Law 16, but you still might be in violation of 73 if choosing to psyche this bid is considered to be "taking advantage of UI".

[blackshoe]

It's in a WBFLC minute from Philadelphia in 2010:

 

http://www.bridge-verband.de/regelseite/doku.php?id=regelseite:wbflc_philadelphia

 

Item 3.

So it is. I thought it might be, but rather than look through all the minutes I checked the White Book - and didn't find it.

[gnasher]

So if you make a totally off-the-wall bid, it's still not an LA.

It *may* not be an LA. That still allows the possibility that it is an LA.

 

Here's the thread where we discussed this last time:

 

http://www.bridgebas...ishing-partner/

[blackshoe]

According to the lawmakers, the phrase "logical alternative" does not mean "logical alternative". There are other similar "interpretations". My conclusion: The law book is not written in English. :o :huh:

[StevenG]

Going back to the original hand, a question just struck me. The poll, as it stands, shows 23 in favour of bidding and 6 in favour of pass. Assuming all the pollees would be considered peers, that would, in itself, make pass an LA. But, what if all or most of the 6 who passed do not play Asptro (or similar) as their defence to a weak no-trump and have no practical experience of what actually works? Is the poll still valid?

[blackshoe]

Polls should be conducted using the methods of the pair concerned, so as long as Asptro methods are adequately explained to pollees who don't know those methods, I would consider the poll valid.