[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-18, 16:16, said:

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]

 gnasher, on 2014-May-19, 01:12, said:

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

Thanks, Gnasher.

Philadelphiea WBFLC minute 3, in 2010 said:

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]

 gnasher, on 2014-May-19, 01:12, said:

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

 gnasher, on 2014-May-19, 01:12, said:

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

http://www.bridge-ve...lc_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]

 barmar, on 2014-May-19, 09:17, said:

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.

[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.