[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2019-June-30, 05:14, said:

Why doesn't he assume you have a flawed weak two (maybe too much outside or two aces) when the 4-level could be ridiculous?

Depends on style on the weak 2, if it's flawed it's probably not a good idea to bid now either.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2019-June-30, 05:10, said:

All three kings polled would have bid without the UI. When I poll I ask them what is demonstrably suggested by the UI as a supplementary question. They answered the wrong question, misunderstanding the Law, as "what would I bid with the UI?".
There is no need for the supplementary question if I establish that Pass is not an LA, but I have to ask it anyway, as I do not know what king2 and king3 will answer. So, you are not sticking to the position of the two kings polled which is that Pass is not an LA, you are going against the poll, and against every AC I have stood on. A Weejonnie very much out of step.

Three kings all bidding does not meet the qualification - even if I allow that they all would have passed on the first hand.

If there is an 80% chance that they would bid - and 20% that they would not then the probability that passing is an LA is still 50% (near enough)

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2019-June-30, 15:08, said:

Three kings all bidding does not meet the qualification - even if I allow that they all would have passed on the first hand.

If there is an 80% chance that they would bid - and 20% that they would not then the probability that passing is an LA is still 50% (near enough)

Ideally one should poll five, but at the end of the bridge evening that is not always possible and the TD has to judge. All we can say is that 100% of those polled did bid. I did ask one of the best players in the club in the pub afterwards, and he thought balancing was automatic, but he was somewhat stronger than the South at the table.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-30, 06:07, said:

Depends on style on the weak 2, if it's flawed it's probably not a good idea to bid now either.

More risky if anything to bid 3H on a 5-card suit. But that is by the by; I don't think double is demonstrably suggested over 3H by the UI. It is demonstrably suggested over Pass, but then I have concluded that Pass is not an LA. Double may work less well than 3H when partner has three hearts, but I don't think that is more likely after the BIT.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2019-June-30, 15:41, said:

More risky if anything to bid 3H on a 5-card suit. But that is by the by; I don't think double is demonstrably suggested over 3H by the UI. It is demonstrably suggested over Pass, but then I have concluded that Pass is not an LA. Double may work less well than 3H when partner has three hearts, but I don't think that is more likely after the BIT.

I think it is suggested, if partner has a borderline 2N call he may well wish to pass the X

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-30, 15:48, said:

I think it is suggested, if partner has a borderline 2N call he may well wish to pass the X

I don't think it is demonstrably suggested however. Partner might have been thinking about bidding 3minor, doubling, or (and yes people do) wondering whether 2NT would show the minors. And if partner has a borderline 2NT, then he will bid 3NT over 3H, and probably over double as well, so there is little difference.

[nige1]

Lamford writes 'Matchpoints; lead ♠3; table result 3NT=
I was directing on this hand, a few months ago at a North London Club, and was surprised that my ruling was severely questioned by E-W, who were experienced players. North's pass over 2S was slow, and he selected 3NT on the second round, which made in some comfort. The BIT was agreed. I consulted three "kings", of a similar standard to the Souths in question, and all would have bid, two doubling and one bidding three hearts. They did not seriously consider pass. When I then told them of the BIT and asked them what they thought partner's hesitation suggested, two of them said, "Well you can't bid now, can you?", or words to that effect, not really understanding Law 16B.
My partner opened the South hand, as would I have done. If I had passed I would not have dreamt of passing it out in 2S and I ruled no adjustment. What do readers think? The field were generally in 4H, all going off, as my partner did, although it should be made with correct play. 3NT= was therefore a top, no doubt a contributory factor to the TD call.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Surprizingly, so far, a Poll posted on BridgeWinners shows that axe-wielding Kings outnumber passive commoners by 3 to 2. Nevertheless, Hoi Polloi, who pass, include experts. Lamford reports that 2 pollees, informed of the BIT, protested "Well, you can't bid now, can you?" That is much more likely to indicate that those Kings considered Pass as a logical alternative (rather than that they're stupid or ignorant). Also, when a pollee protects with 3♥, should the director consider a contract of 4♥-1?

---

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2019-July-01, 08:26, said:

I don't think it is demonstrably suggested however. Partner might have been thinking about bidding 3minor, doubling, or (and yes people do) wondering whether 2NT would show the minors. And if partner has a borderline 2NT, then he will bid 3NT over 3H, and probably over double as well, so there is little difference.

Isn't pass the winner in abstract even with the collection N has ? (diamond lead, cash side winners and uppercut the 4th club) if he has another spade it's a really clear winner

[lamford]

nige1, on 2019-July-01, 16:06, said:

Surprizingly, so far, a Poll posted on BridgeWinners shows that axe-wielding Kings outnumber passive commoners by 3 to 2. Nevertheless, Hoi Polloi, who pass, include experts. Lamford reports that 2 pollees, informed of the BIT, protested "Well, you can't bid now, can you?" That is much more likely to indicate  that those Kings considered Pass as a logical alternative (rather than that they are stupid or ignorant). Also, when a pollee protects with 3♥, should the director consider a contract of 4♥-1?[/hv]

Looking at the list of those voting for pass, the only expert (that I know) is Fleet who wrote:
"Maybe I'm wrong but I would prefer to open this hand than to pass and make an off-shape double." I guess one has to exclude John Diamond's vote for double as well. The Spingold and Rosenblum winner is far too strong.

I would reply to Fleet, "answer the question that you were asked, or abstain". That ship has sailed, and I would also have opened the hand. However, the peers of the player are really those who would have passed the hand, so Fleet is not a peer for the purpose of deciding LAs.

And one cannot conduct a Bridgewinners poll at the club. Perhaps such polls should be conducted, in these days of VAR, prior to an appeal.

And the kings I polled did not consider pass until they heard about the BIT.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-July-02, 05:56, said:

And one cannot conduct a Bridgewinners poll at the club.

It could be done, without disturbing Bridgewinners, but using similar forum technology.
Just as video recording to document and measure the BIT could be done.
The problems are no longer technical, just cultural.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-July-02, 06:32, said:

It could be done, without disturbing Bridgewinners, but using similar forum technology.
Just as video recording to document and measure the BIT could be done.
The problems are no longer technical, just cultural.

If it were a World Championship, they would have a recording, and the TDs would consult with at least five players of the same standing. With bridge numbers generally declining this would be too great an expense for most clubs! I suspect the TD is quick to end the poll, as did I, if it agrees with his own assessment. Human nature.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-July-02, 06:32, said:

It could be done, without disturbing Bridgewinners, but using similar forum technology.
Just as video recording to document and measure the BIT could be done.
The problems are no longer technical, just cultural.

How would you get the results in a reasonable amount of time, and restrict the pollees to peers of the player in question?

Yes, you could start a poll, but it doesn't seem like you could realistically get useful results. Notice the difference between the results of the BW poll for the original question versus the results Lamford got when polling at his club.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-July-02, 08:24, said:

How would you get the results in a reasonable amount of time, and restrict the pollees to peers of the player in question?

Yes, you could start a poll, but it doesn't seem like you could realistically get useful results. Notice the difference between the results of the BW poll for the original question versus the results Lamford got when polling at his club.

And the BW poll did not ask people whether they considered themselves kings ...

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-July-02, 08:17, said:

If it were a World Championship, they would have a recording, and the TDs would consult with at least five players of the same standing. With bridge numbers generally declining this would be too great an expense for most clubs!

Recording with an overhead dome wireless camera could cost less than $50 per table these days. But it is a grey area in legal terms, especially as sound recording is involved, and not foreseen/regulated by the RA either.

barmar, on 2019-July-02, 08:24, said:

How would you get the results in a reasonable amount of time, and restrict the pollees to peers of the player in question?

You could select the pollees of your choice from within the members of your whatsapp club group and create a poll using ferendum, pollsgo or similar. Screenshot or photograph the hand diagram and scorecard as relevant. They need to have their phones turned on, but who ever managed to stop that anyway. Probably the only realistic timing is immediately after the end of play, but it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to have the results.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-July-02, 10:41, said:

Recording with an overhead dome wireless camera could cost less than $50 per table these days. But it is a grey area in legal terms, especially as sound recording is involved, and not foreseen/regulated by the RA either.

You could select the pollees of your choice from within the members of your whatsapp club group and create a poll using ferendum, pollsgo or similar. Screenshot or photograph the hand diagram and scorecard as relevant. They need to have their phones turned on, but who ever managed to stop that anyway. Probably the only realistic timing is immediately after the end of play, but it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to have the results.

I don't think any bridge club in the UK would consider doing either of those.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-July-03, 03:55, said:

I don't think any bridge club in the UK would consider doing either of those.

If they implement poll management directly in Whatsapp then I'll give it a try.

Audio-video recording is a much bigger hurdle - the legal issues and regulamentory void would deter any club in Italy I think.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-July-03, 05:06, said:

If they implement poll management directly in Whatsapp then I'll give it a try.

Audio-video recording is a much bigger hurdle - the legal issues and regulamentory void would deter any club in Italy I think.

It is a game, not a Brexit referendum ... There is a strong argument for a TD (if of sufficient strength) using his judgement without polling. After all 16B3 states: . The Director shall assign an adjusted score <snip> if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

So if the director does not so consider, he does not award an adjusted score, and there is no requirement on him to poll, except that it is good practice in marginal cases.

And, off topic, Parliament is completely within its rights to revoke Brexit as the referendum, like LA polls, was only advisory.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2019-July-03, 17:35, said:

It is a game, not a Brexit referendum ... There is a strong argument for a TD (if of sufficient strength) using his judgement without polling. After all 16B3 states: . The Director shall assign an adjusted score <snip> if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

So if the director does not so consider, he does not award an adjusted score, and there is no requirement on him to poll, except that it is good practice in marginal cases.

And, off topic, Parliament is completely within its rights to revoke Brexit as the referendum, like LA polls, was only advisory.

Yes it was - however the Prime Minister at the time, in the Government leaflet, made clear that the Government would implement the decision of the people. (unles you think this was a psychological ploy to put additional pressure on those who would vote to leave.)

Of course both the Labour and Conservative parties campaigned on the 2017 election on the promise they would implement Brexit. This is the basic reason why they are now polling so low (18% and 22%) - the public no longer trust them.

Anyway - back to bridge. YES the TD can apply law 12 if he thinks there is damage - the problem is that the TD may not be aware of all the nuances of the bidding agreements that a partnership may have - and he has to make a decision based on the 'class of player' - which can be very difficult. Regression towards the mean is seen as the most practicable way forward.