Acceptance of game invitation

[WellSpyder]

But I thought South had to bid 2♦ at his second turn to show 11-13 balanced with a four-card major (that's what the annotation in the OP says, anyway). If he could have raised diamonds, rather than having to show four spades, then he might have bid 3♦ after which 3♠-3NT would be a normal enough conclusion to the auction. I expect the system isn't really as it's been depicted, because this would be bonkers, but another part of the modern game is that people play bonkers systems.

South's options at his second turn were:

2♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and no particular enthusiasm for ♦

3♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and enthusiasm for ♦

Anything else to show a strong club, with 2♣ the default option unless he had a good suit of his own to show.

(11-13 balanced hands without a four-card major are not opened 1♣ - see post #2.)

[StevenG]

What we do want is people not to do things that they wouldn't have done had partner acted in normal tempo.

I do things I wouldn't have done if partner acted in normal tempo. I am constrained by L16B.

[nige1]

You could equally well argue that a conservative player is likely to invite after seriously considering passing when an aggressive player would invite in tempo, so a slow invitation by a conservative player suggests passing. Both arguments are invalid, of course, any player who thinks and then invites could either have a minimum invite (by his standards) or a maximum invite (by his standards). If he is conservative then it follows that a slow invite from him will on average be stronger than an invite from another player, but it is equally true that an in-tempo invite from him will be slightly stronger than an invite from another player, so the UI tells you nothing new about his expected strength.

I've argued differently in the past but campboy's refutation seems convincing. Being aggresive or conservative just shifts your actions right or left on the following diagram (where the queried actions may involve hesitation)

 

Kind of player ________________________Hand strength ----------------------------------------------->

Conservative ..Pass______|_Pass or try?_|____Game try____ |_Try or game?_ |_Bid game .....

Aggressive......Pass_|_Pass or try?_|____Game try ____|_Try or game?_ |_Bid game................

[cherdano]

South's options at his second turn were:

2♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and no particular enthusiasm for ♦

3♦ to show 11-3 balanced with a four-card major and enthusiasm for ♦

I would have 3♦ at the first turn.

But having bid 2♦ only, I think it's clear to bid 3N over 3♦.

 

I hope the players polled by the TD were given the above information.

[WellSpyder]

I would have 3♦ at the first turn.

I think my partner felt that either bid was possible, but the doubtful value of ♠Q led him to be cautious.

But having bid 2♦ only, I think it's clear to bid 3N over 3♦.

That was certainly his feeling.

I hope the players polled by the TD were given the above information.

VixTD would have to confirm that one way or the other, but I think the difficulty of ensuring that those polled have a full picture of the implications of the auction is always a reason to be a little bit cautious about the results of a poll, and indeed is one of the reasons why we have ACs at all where these issues can be explored in more detail.

[WellSpyder]

I have now seen the write-up of this case by the AC, which states:

"We gave due weight to the poll conducted by the TD, and considered that hesitations tend to show extra values rather than marginal values. We considered pass an alternative with two unstopped suits and given a spade lead would be through the AQ."

 

I'm not convinced by the alleged tendency for slow invites to have maximum values rather than minimum values, but whether or not one agrees with that, I am bothered by the fact that on this particular occasion the alternative to inviting that was being considered was passing rather than bidding game. I am also bothered by the lack of any apparent recognition that south has already denied a good hand in support of ♦s, and given the lack of any confirmation from VixTD I suspect this wasn't allowed for in the poll, either. However, I suspect polls will always include opinions that don't fully recognise the implications of the auction, and that simply means ACs should give due, but not undue, weight to them.

 

At any rate, the case has been decided. I have two suggestions for the future, both reflecting points I have touched on earlier in the thread.

 

1) I don't see any reason why TDs should limit polling on the issue of what is suggested to those who are undecided about what to bid. It is hard enough to poll sufficient people as it is, and there is no reason why others who have been given the auction can't have valid views on what is suggested.

 

2) If ACs are going to base their conclusions on disregarding a statement from one of the players on what they were thinking about, I think it would be good practice to at least give them an opportunity to explain their point of view, rather than for subsequent discussion of the hand simply to be on the basis that the statement is a given.

 

If there is any agreement on one or both of these points, it might be worth looking at current guidance to the relevant participants to see whether further clarification would be useful.

[PeterAlan]

I think it is important to maintain a clear distinction between the procedure of polling players in order to arrive at a decision on what is a "logical alternative" (the test in Law 16B1(b)) and any consultations the TD may undertake when deciding what "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the extraneous information (Law 16B1(a)).

 

The EBU has specific guidance on the former:

 

8.16.6.2 Method

 

Asking players for opinions is helpful in deciding whether an action would be considered and chosen, but the questions should be carefully presented.

 

For example, in a hesitation case players should be given the problem without reference to the hesitation. The TD should ask them what they would call after the given sequence, telling them the methods employed. If their answer is not the action under consideration, they should be asked what alternatives they considered.

 

Such polls will help to give the TD an idea of whether an action is a logical alternative. If a TD takes a poll and then it goes to appeal the TD should write the results of the poll on the form.

This does not extend to any sort of formal polling on the second question, and it seems to me a mistake if the distinction becomes in any way blurred or the two distinct processes conflated.