[VixTD]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-November-25, 08:51, said:

For future reference, is there any reason why you only asked those who were undecided about what they would bid what they thought a hesitation would suggest, rather than also asking those who knew what they would have done?

 jallerton, on 2014-November-25, 17:38, said:

If I understand you correctly, you only asked two players what they thought the UI suggested. I don't think that the TD/AC should attach too much weight to a sample size of 2!

I could have asked all the players, it just made more sense to me to ask a player who was "swithering" which way they would be swayed by a slow bid than someone who would only choose one action.

I also don't think that everyone who is suitable for a poll to find logical alternatives is necessarily good at working out what is suggested. Even some good players struggle with the concept. (I'm aware that I'm leaving myself open to the accusation that I'm deliberately creating a biased poll. Of course I didn't select players who I thought would give a particular answer, but you could argue that answers from players who can't work out what is suggested are just as valuable as anyone else's.)

[VixTD]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-November-25, 08:19, said:

There seems to be a curious misunderstanding here of how appeals are conducted in England these days. The players rarely get to state anything on an appeal form, and indeed NS on this occasion never even saw one.

I stated the objections to the ruling which you gave at the table in the "TD comments" section of the form. There is also a section for the players to add their remarks, but I think it's less important for the players to do this when they are going to be present at the appeal and can argue their case eloquently in person.

[VixTD]

 nige1, on 2014-November-25, 21:57, said:

I guess that Vixtd found it hard enough to find her original sample of 4 appropriate players.

I don't know which English TD you're taking me for, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

[RMB1]

 nige1, on 2014-November-25, 21:57, said:

I guess that Vixtd found it hard enough to find her original sample of 4 appropriate players.

I presume that nigel is reading "Vixtd" as "Vixen TD" in assuming that Vixtd is female. We may have our own opinion of which female EBU TD most befits "Vixen".

[nige1]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-26, 08:19, said:

I don't know which English TD you're taking me for, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

You have a right to your anonymity and I respect it.

 RMB1, on 2014-November-26, 11:08, said:

I presume that nigel is reading "Vixtd" as "Vixen TD" in assuming that Vixtd is female.

I made a random choice.

[VixTD]

 nige1, on 2014-November-26, 11:12, said:

You have a right to your anonymity and I respect it. I made a random choice.

I don't crave anonymity. I used to post under my name on the old forum. When we switched to this one it wouldn't let me use any standard variation of my name (all were already taken), and after some desperate attempts to find one it would accept I ended up with "Vix", an old school nickname derived from my surname which was originally applied to my brother, then to me. As it wouldn't even allow that I appended "TD" as it seemed to have worked for Gordon, and I was fed up of trying.

I expect you can identify me now from the TD list in the EBU diary, if you are interested.

[blackshoe]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-26, 13:18, said:

I expect you can identify me now from the TD list in the EBU diary, if you are interested.

That would be too much like work.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-26, 14:03, said:

That would be too much like work.

Not if you use your EBU diary every day.

[WellSpyder]

 nige1, on 2014-November-25, 21:57, said:

In the old days, committee members were told to confine their comments to the official appeal report.

I don't think we should criticise lamford's contribution to this discussion, indeed I think we should be grateful for it. I don't think anything has been said that devalues the appeals process or undermines the confidentiality of discussions between the AC members themselves, and I for one am grateful for a chance to understand the sort of thinking that affected the AC's decision (however much I might disagree with some of the judgments involved!).

It is at least clear to me now that there is more scope for judgment in the ruling rather than simply logic than I had perhaps appreciated at the time, even if some of the judgments expressed seem to be based on a lack of understanding about the systemic inferences available (I'm thinking of dburn's rather forthright comments in particular). I gave the south hand to a Tollemache-standard player from another county who I found myself travelling with after the EBU's AGM yesterday and his judgments were:

a) it makes sense for S to bid only 2♦ rather than 3♦ on the second round of the auction given that ♠Q is likely to be of limited value;

b) once north bids 3♦ over this it looks clear to bid 3NT. 4♦ might be an alternative, but 11 tricks looks a long way off.

c) when pressed, he accepted that passing 3♦ might be a LA.

d) when shown the north hand, he said he would probably have passed over 2♦.

I really do not think, therefore, that it is obvious north has a maximum invite and that south has no reason to accept, even if that is your final judgment.

[dburn]

Oh, I don't mind people bidding without enough points. It's the modern game.

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.

It occurs to me that "suggested" is probably the wrong word in Law 16. We don't want to spend any more time pointing out smugly (and almost always wrongly) that a slow invitation doesn't suggest anything. As an erstwhile chair of the L&E I did once remark that the slower a call, the less happy the caller was that it should conclude the auction - but this was simply based on many years of experience, and remains more firmly based on many more years of it.

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

[WellSpyder]

 dburn, on 2014-November-27, 05:23, said:

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]

 dburn, on 2014-November-27, 05:23, said:

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]

 campboy, on 2014-November-26, 04:57, said:

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]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-November-27, 05:54, said:

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]

 cherdano, on 2014-November-27, 07:22, said:

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.

Quote

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

That was certainly his feeling.

Quote

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:

White Book 2014 (p114) said:

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.