[Cascade]

---

MPs

3♥ = weak both majors

Partner passed after exhausting the ten seconds while the stop card was out and then some.

Is bidding 4♣ here a 75% action so that there are no logical alternatives?

[hotShot]

I guess that 3♠ is nonforcing and denying ♥.

In that case you have AI, that your partner has some values and you can see from your own hand that he's likely to have some (5-) ♥.
You also know that partner is unlikely to be long (3-) in ♠. With long ♦ partner could have bid 4♦ and with both minors he could dbl. You also know from your hand, that partner is unlikely to have a (solid) ♣ stopper and that he's likely to be short there.

You have AI that partner will have trouble to find a bid.

You get the additional UI that partner probably has values in ♥ (and that is no surprise either), that would be wasted in a ♣ contract.

I don't see that partners hesitation suggests something over another.


But if you insist, while I would bid 4♣ many people I know would pass with this hand.

[MarkDean]

I would pass even without UI constraints. All red, MPs, they are not in game, and I am risking the 4 level which is also not game? All with hand I would not open...not for me.

[mr1303]

The trouble as I see it, if we can make 4C, we'll be in 5 or more, probably doubled, and even 1 off is more than I can afford.

Sorry, gotta pass this. 4C for me (and I think most people) shows a better all round hand.

[nige1]

IMO P = 10, 4♣ = 6
Even if protecting, I don't think I'd bid. Anyway, pass seems to be the preferred logical alternative for some of us. Whatever we do, we must decide fast so as not to compromise partner's options

[bluejak]

The 75% rule has been consigned to history. The Law book now contains a definition of LA that is tighter [at least outside the ACBL] than previously.

So, assuming you are considering pass as a potential alternative, the question is whether pass would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of similar players, and whether some of them would actually choose it.

While figures are not really the answer, perhaps we might decide whether at least two players in ten would consider pass. I would say definitely.

Of those, would more than just one actually pass? I would say definitely.

So pass is an LA, and 4♣ is not evident.



Incidentally, why Appeals and Appeal Committees? Is there more to come in this story?

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-October-23, 17:46, said:

Incidentally, why Appeals and Appeal Committees? Is there more to come in this story?

This forum says it is for: "From setting up a Committee to checking a decision".

This matter went to appeal where the appeal committee ruled that in their opinion 4♣ was a 75% action and thus they overturned the director's ruling of returning the score to 3♠ -1.

bluejak, on 2010-October-23, 17:46, said:

The 75% rule has been consigned to history. The Law book now contains a definition of LA that is tighter [at least outside the ACBL] than previously.

So, assuming you are considering pass as a potential alternative, the question is whether pass would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of similar players, and whether some of them would actually choose it.

While figures are not really the answer, perhaps we might decide whether at least two players in ten would consider pass. I would say definitely.

Maybe not in New Zealand.

In our manual we have this, in my opinion poorly worded regulation/interpretation, which is incidentally promulgated jointly by both NZ Bridge and the Australian Bridge Federation:

"Law 16B1(
For the purpose of this Law, a significant number is defined as more than one in four Players.

This means that, if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of Players in question, using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the Player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist."

I believe that it is poorly worded as:

1. it uses the phrase "significant number" when the law uses the similar phrase "significant proportion"

2. The "significant proportion" in the law refers to the proportion who would give "serious consideration" to the call whereas the second paragraph of the regulation/interpretation suggests that a 75% has no logical alternatives which is quite different.

[bluejak]

I believe that that regulation is likely to confuse.

If a significant number or proportion is considered at least one in four - which is notably higher than the general view around the world - then if you believe that more than three out of four would choose an action that does not mean that fewer than one on four would seriously consider another action.

In case anyone fails to see the point let me give an example. Suppose there is an auction where there is a decision, whether to pass or double. You poll 100 people, and ask them what they consider, and what they choose. The results are:

50 consider nothing but double, and they double
30 consider double and pass, and they double
15 consider double and pass, and they pass
5 consider nothing but pass, and they pass

Is pass an LA? Yes, according to the Law book. No, according to the ABF and NZB [so I understand[.

More than 75% choose double. From what I am told that means that pass is not an LA per the ABF and NZB.

However, 50% consider pass, more than 25%, and some of those choose pass. Thus pass is an LA per the Law book even using the 25% quoted by the ABF and NZB.

Worrying. Perhaps I shall ask somewhere where it should get the correct people answering.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-October-25, 08:58, said:

Perhaps I shall ask somewhere where it should get the correct people answering.

You can read the relevant portion of the NZ Bridge manual from a link on this page here:

click the "Policies, Rules & Regulations" on the left

[jallerton]

The use of "significant number" rather than "significant proportion" is not important; in context it is clearly meant to be the same thing.

Quote

If a significant number or proportion is considered at least one in four - which is notably higher than the general view around the world.....

The actual proportion is a matter of interpretation by the Regulatory Authority. There are other countries which use 1 in 4, notably one where Bluejak is a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee!

However, I agree with Bluejak that applying this significant proportion/number to what people would actually bid, rather than what people would seriously consider, is an illegal regulation. Whilst this would have been OK under the 1997 Laws (in which the term "logical alternative" was not defined) it seems that whoever updated the New Zealand handbook for the 2007 Laws had overlooked what the new Law actually says.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2010-October-25, 16:37, said:

The actual proportion is a matter of interpretation by the Regulatory Authority. There are other countries which use 1 in 4, notably one where Bluejak is a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee!

Strange: I am on the L&EC of two countries, and neither uses one in four. <puzzled>

[nige1]

Misunderstanding - Deleted

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2010-October-25, 17:32, said:

Strange: I am on the L&EC of two countries, and neither uses one in four. <puzzled>

Perhaps it is my mistake. I was under the impression that you were a member of the Welsh L&EC.

According to the WBU website: Welsh Bridge Union website

WBU said:

Ken Richardson has prepared a very useful set of notes giving Interpretation and Guidance in the WBU context

Clicking on that link, there is useful guidance on the Welsh interpretation of several of the 2007 Laws. It says the following about Law 16B1:

WBU said:

[b]Law 16B1[b]For the purpose of this Law, a significant number is defined as more than one in four players. This would mean that up to three logical alternatives might exist as, in order to be defined as a logical alternative it should be judged that more than 25% of players would take the action. In this situation the director will need to consider [under 16B1(a)] if the extraneous information would provide additional reasons for choosing the logical alternative selected at the table.

On the other hand if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of players in question using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist. This would lead to a ruling that the table result stands.

This guidance also seems to ignore "seriously considered" actions. In fact, it looks as though Welsh TDs are being given the same "worrying" guidance as those from New Zealand.

[bluejak]

Well, I can assure you that the advice from Ken has nothing to do with the Welsh L&EC, and I shall make sure we discuss it shortly. As for Welsh TDs using it, no doubt some do, but it is not official, and I doubt that such Welsh TDs as Liz Stevenson, David Stevenson, Mike Amos, Sarah Amos do.

The presumption because someone posts something means that all TDs in that country do that seems pretty unfair.

On th other hand if you look at official sources you will find that the White book applies in Wales and that certainly does not contain that advice.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-October-27, 06:33, said:

Well, I can assure you that the advice from Ken has nothing to do with the Welsh L&EC, and I shall make sure we discuss it shortly. As for Welsh TDs using it, no doubt some do, but it is not official, and I doubt that such Welsh TDs as Liz Stevenson, David Stevenson, Mike Amos, Sarah Amos do.

The presumption because someone posts something means that all TDs in that country do that seems pretty unfair.

On th other hand if you look at official sources you will find that the White book applies in Wales and that certainly does not contain that advice.

I wonder where that advice comes from especially since it is nearly identical to the wording of the regulation in New Zealand.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2010-October-27, 06:33, said:

Well, I can assure you that the advice from Ken has nothing to do with the Welsh L&EC, and I shall make sure we discuss it shortly. As for Welsh TDs using it, no doubt some do, but it is not official, and I doubt that such Welsh TDs as Liz Stevenson, David Stevenson, Mike Amos, Sarah Amos do.

The presumption because someone posts something means that all TDs in that country do that seems pretty unfair.

On th other hand if you look at official sources you will find that the White book applies in Wales and that certainly does not contain that advice.

Of course, if "someone posts something" on (say) this forum then of course there is no reason why others should necessarily follow the poster's views.

But this situation is rather more than just "someone posting something".

This guidance has:

• been uploaded on to the official Welsh Bridge Union website
  
• is headed "The 2007 Laws - Interpretation and Guidance for the Welsh Bridge Union"
  
• is credited as having been written by the Chief Tournament Director of Welsh Bridge Union

Hence if the guidance is not "official", it gives a very good impression of being so!

The WBU website does also refer to the EBU White Book. It says:

Quote

The White Book is the EBU Tournament Directors Guide which also has useful information for tournament players. It includes commentaries on the laws and other information such as split tie regs; victory point scales; how to give 'weighted' rulings; how to score boards where pairs leave early or don't arrive and general guidance on preparing to run a tournament. The 2010 edition replaces the earlier edition with immediate effect.

This tells us that the EBU White Book contains "commentaries" and whilst there is the implication that the English White Book is a useful source of reference, there is no statement to suggest that it is officially used in Wales. Most readers would assume that they should follow "Interpretation and Guidance for the Welsh Bridge Union" in the first instance.

My understanding is that all of the eminent TDs you list above direct in both English and Welsh events. Naturally, players would expect them to use English regulations and interpretations of Law when directing in England, but equally players would expect them to use Welsh regulations and interpretations of Law when directing in Wales.

[bluejak]

Forget the irrelevancies: bridge in Wales is played under the rules and conditions of contest laid out in the Year book, and that's the official view.

Ken Richardson is not and never has been "Chief Tournament Director of the Welsh Bridge Union".

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-October-27, 16:21, said:

Forget the irrelevancies: bridge in Wales is played under the rules and conditions of contest laid out in the Year book, and that's the official view.

Ken Richardson is not and never has been "Chief Tournament Director of the Welsh Bridge Union".

Why should who the chief tournament director is have any bearing on the official interpretations and regulations.

A tournament director's role is to ensure that the regulations, laws and their interpretations are complied with not to promulgate those regulations and interpretations.

[blackshoe]

I looked at the guidance in question. Neither it nor the link to it on the WBU website gives credit to "the CTD of the WBU", as far as I can see. The link gives credit to "Ken Richardson". I couldn't find anywhere on the site a statement regarding the identity of the CTD.

[jallerton]

Sorry, my mistake; I was under the impression that Mr Richardson was the Chief TD of the WBU. Elsewhere on the WBU website, e.g. here suggests that he was the Chief TD there but it does not say when.

I have also read on the internet that David himself used to be the Chief TD of the WBU, but it is not clear who has that role now.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2010-October-28, 14:09
Reason for edit: correct malformed hyperlink