[lamford]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-26, 21:32, said:

A poll here is only relevant if it is limited to South's peers; and if there aren't enough of them floating around to conduct a sensible poll, all you can do if put yourself in his shoes.

It is not that difficult to imagine opening 1NT on the South hand, and I can certainly put myself in the position of someone who does not know what a double of 3C would mean. Those polled can pretend to be peers of the accused with the same knowledge.

And when push comes to shove, we have a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI, and I think that Double and 3♦ both fail to do that, which just leaves Pass. So we can go the L73C route or the L16B route. I think it closer to a PP than allowing 3♦.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2011-September-27, 18:20, said:

And when push comes to shove, we have a duty to carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI, and I think that Double and 3♦Pass both fail to do that, which just leaves Pass3D. So we can go the L73C route or the L16B route. I think it closer to a PP if he doubled.

Not really a "FYP". Just the easiest way I had to disagree.

[bluejak]

You cannot really ever poll the peers of players, especially those who do strange things. Polling should not replace judgement anyway: it is an aid to judgement. One of the reasons why polls are usually taken of better players is that their experience and depth of knowledge makes it easier for them to imagine themselves in another player's shoes.

[AlexJonson]

'South is a pro' is stated in the OP, so we are comparing him with some good players, then let's imagine he is an EBU Senior International, for the sake of argument.

I understand the practicality of Bluejak's latest post on this thread (though slightly previously he was less equivocal about polling).

But however convinced we are about our ability to judge, we shouldn't penalise real experts without corroboration - if we are not sure we objectively match up as players.

So this hand is simple, poll some experts and if they more or less all bid on (without knowing about the UI!) we are done. This is slightly unfair to the expert because I haven't included a lack of agreement on the meaning of double over 3C - rough justice.

As for Lamford. You want to imagine a group for a poll, tell them there was UI and what it was, and invite them to exert their superhuman judgement and vote on pass as an LA.

You should reconsider your position.

[lamford]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-September-28, 13:23, said:

As for Lamford. You want to imagine a group for a poll, tell them there was UI and what it was, and invite them to exert their superhuman judgement and vote on pass as an LA.

No, I would not give them the UI. I would not try to find people who would open 1NT on this hand either, as it would take too long. I would say "You decide to open 1NT (15-17) on this hand. LHO bids 3C which is natural, and the strength is not discussed, nor is what double by your partner would mean. It is passed round to you. What do you bid, and what other bids do you seriously consider."

To try and find people who
a) would open 1NT, and
b) have not discussed double over 3C,

is not practical.

And, despite my respecting the view of FrancesHinden, I think the poll is quite good evidence - the best we can get. I agree we want to poll players of the same strength, but we can tell them the style and method.

[AlexJonson]

I would be more confident that the poll was useful if I was certain the majority meant that they would definitely pass 3C as South. If that is what they meant, then (despite the excess of information in the OP for poll purposes) I would agree with you that the poll is probably useful.

[gombo121]

Quote

What did the traveller look like?

Sorry, I don't have access to the archives. If I remember correctly one pair got to 6♦ and went down there, one more played in 3♦, all other made a game, some in 3NT some in 5♦.

[aguahombre]

post deleted

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-October-04, 04:27

[gombo121]

Sorry?

Dummy was something like ♠Qхх ♥Jхх ♦Aхххх ♣ххх with ♦K and ♥A onside.

[mycroft]

I wouldn't go looking for people who will open 1NT, but I would go looking for at least part-time pros, who I could say to, "you're playing with a (poor) client and choose to open this 1NT. You okay with that?"

If they say they'd never even think about NT, even with one of their normal clients opposite, then I don't weight their opinion highly. If they say "Oh, he's that bad?" then I do. If he's okay with it, then he's okay with it.

[ICEmachine]

I think its dangerous to assume that because South is a very good and agressive player (hand-hog) that he can bid 3♦ on the given auction just because he knows defending 3♣ is a bad score. Am I assuming correctly when I say that it more or less says that if its a lesser experienced player or not a hand-hog type you would rule that pass was LA?


I am pretty sure that a very good player would see in his partners temp if he has values or not and I would never give a very good player the benefit of doubt. I would let him try and convince 3 other experts in the AC why he thinks pass is not LA!

[AlexJonson]

 ICEmachine, on 2011-October-06, 15:12, said:

I think its dangerous to assume that because South is a very good and agressive player (hand-hog) that he can bid 3♦ on the given auction just because he knows defending 3♣ is a bad score. Am I assuming correctly when I say that it more or less says that if its a lesser experienced player or not a hand-hog type you would rule that pass was LA?


I am pretty sure that a very good player would see in his partners temp if he has values or not and I would never give a very good player the benefit of doubt. I would let him try and convince 3 other experts in the AC why he thinks pass is not LA!

I keep having to ask if we have an agreed meaning of LA in the Laws of Bridge. As I understand it, the meaning relates to the class of player and their methods, and is defined by a poll, and poll comes before AC.

Am I wrong?

So many people want to apply their dubious common sense.

[ICEmachine]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-October-06, 15:54, said:

I keep having to ask if we have an agreed meaning of LA in the Laws of Bridge. As I understand it, the meaning relates to the class of player and their methods, and is defined by a poll, and poll comes before AC.

Am I wrong?

So many people want to apply their dubious common sense.

Ofcourse its very difficult to find a nice selection within the scope of the player involved.

But I have many times seen passive bidders become agressive and slashing bidders becoming scientific bidders after a very small but noticeable hesitations.

I think its impossible to know what the player involved would do if his partner bids in tempo. If he doesnt we can only get as close to the decision as possible but ofc we can never know what the player would do. The best option is to ask players of similar/same level who are a similar type of player. IMO I think that if there is doubt, its enough to not rule in favour of the offending side. Maybe Im harsh, but so many times players change types at the tables depending on bids out of tempo by opposition or partner. How can we decide that it wasnt the case here? Personally I would only be in doubt if the Opener had a 6-card diamond suit and was opening 1NT to hawk the final contract. But is 4252 so obscure distribution that we give the offender the benefit of doubt after opening 1NT?

[blackshoe]

The meaning of a call is defined by clearly stated agreements. In the absence of clearly stated agreements, it is defined by the TD's judgement of the likely meaning amongst the player's peers, informed possibly (hopefully, I should think) by consultation or poll, or both.

[bluejak]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-October-06, 15:54, said:

I keep having to ask if we have an agreed meaning of LA in the Laws of Bridge. As I understand it, the meaning relates to the class of player and their methods, and is defined by a poll, and poll comes before AC.

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are not wrong that there is an agreed meaning of LA in the Laws of Bridge and the meaning relates to the class of player and their methods, as shown in Law 16B1B:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (b) 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.

But whether an action is an LA is a matter of judgement for a TD or an AC. The notion of a poll is not in the Laws: it is just considered good TD practice in many cases to take a poll as an aid. The poll does not replace the TD's or AC's judgement.

Of course, as Ed says, consultation is also recommended as part of a TD’s judgement process. If a Referee replaces an AC then it is similarly recommended that the Referee should consult.

[AlexJonson]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 10:16, said:

Yes. You are not wrong that there is an agreed meaning of LA in the Laws of Bridge and the meaning relates to the class of player and their methods, as shown in Law 16B1B:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (b) 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.

But whether an action is an LA is a matter of judgement for a TD or an AC. The notion of a poll is not in the Laws: it is just considered good TD practice in many cases to take a poll as an aid. The poll does not replace the TD's or AC's judgement.

Of course, as Ed says, consultation is also recommended as part of a TD’s judgement process. If a Referee replaces an AC then it is similarly recommended that the Referee should consult.

Thanks bluejak. My concern was an impression (right or wrong) that for some players an LA is the least advantageous outcome available as a punishment for hesitation or an alerting mix up.

I find your description helpful and clear.