[Cyberyeti]

X, although I would open a queen better than this, maybe less dangerous if you open reasonably light as partner will play you for less

[jallerton]

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-15, 05:39, said:

Must be a ruling.

Correct, but it is not a live ruling. I am reviewing some old appeals for the next EBU Appeals Booklet.

cherdano, on 2015-November-16, 06:18, said:

Given this was posted in the I/A forum, I would think we can't count you as a peer...

Yes, this is why I posted the hand in the I/A forum, although Justin's views are always worth reading.

Double was selected at the table after a slow pass from partner. Partner's hand was AJ109x none AKQxx Axx. She passed the reopening double and then doubled the escape to 3♥ for penalties (an interesting choice on a void when 6♦ looks like it might be making).

The TD ruled that Pass was a logical alternative and adjusted the table result [3♥x-2] to 2♠ undoubled -4, but the AC over-ruled the TD and restored the table result.

If the respondents to this poll are peers of the player, then it seems as though the TD was right (currently, slightly over 20% have selected Pass and some of the doublers seem to have seriously considered it).

[phil_20686]

jallerton, on 2015-November-18, 02:20, said:

The TD ruled that Pass was a logical alternative and adjusted the table result [3♥x-2] to 2♠ undoubled -4, but the AC over-ruled the TD and restored the table result.

If the respondents to this poll are peers of the player, then it seems as though the TD was right (cuurently, slightly over 20% have selected Pass and some of the doublers seem to have seriously considered it).

Generally in this situation the better the player the more aggressively they will protect, so the weaker you think the player is the more you should pass. The caveat is that with players below a certain level of experience the hesitation should not be considered to show anything in particular really.

[WesleyC]

Interesting ruling. One issue I have is that the wording of what constitutes a 'logical alternative' is fundamentally unfavorable to less experienced players.

While a panel of top experts might *sometimes* agree unilaterally about the correct action, a panel of intermediate players hardly ever will. By definition the intermediate players all have gaps in their bridge understanding, and these gaps will appear in different areas. They will also be more prone to straight up blunders. As a result the intermediate poll is always going to generate more logical alternatives.

[jallerton]

WesleyC, on 2015-November-18, 08:43, said:

Interesting ruling. One issue I have is that the wording of what constitutes a 'logical alternative' is fundamentally unfavorable to less experienced players.

While a panel of top experts might *sometimes* agree unilaterally about the correct action, a panel of intermediate players hardly ever will. By definition the intermediate players all have gaps in their bridge understanding, and these gaps will appear in different areas. They will also be more prone to straight up blunders. As a result the intermediate poll is always going to generate more logical alternatives.

Maybe, but if intermediate players are not consistent with what call they might make on a particular hand, then they might (even if only subconsciously) be influenced by any UI from partner. Another reason why experts might gain in this type of situation is that their partners are more likely to be experts, who know to try to avoid pausing for longer than the normal stop period in positions where partner may come under ethical pressure.

But experts don't always have it their own way. Sometimes, there will be one obvious action which I'd expect most bridge players to choose; it would be the only logical alternative for an intermediate player. But an expert could think of an extra possibility, maybe a bid which can't logically be natural in the context of what (s)he believes the auction to mean. Now suppose that the expert has UI from an unexpected alert/explanation. Now the expert may be ethically obliged to make the "can't logically be natural" bid which is less likely to clear up the misunderstanding (s)he has discovered through UI.

[WesleyC]

jallerton, on 2015-November-19, 02:15, said:

But experts don't always have it their own way. Sometimes, there will be one obvious action which I'd expect most bridge players to choose; it would be the only logical alternative for an intermediate player. But an expert could think of an extra possibility, maybe a bid which can't logically be natural in the context of what (s)he believes the auction to mean. Now suppose that the expert has UI from an unexpected alert/explanation. Now the expert may be ethically obliged to make the "can't logically be natural" bid which is less likely to clear up the misunderstanding (s)he has discovered through UI.

In my experience, the rules aren't enforced this way. You're not allowed to make a 'creative' bid in a situation where you think the 'normal' bid is suggested by the UI because if it works, you will be ruled against. UI rulings basically amount to "if pass is one of the logical alternatives then you must pass". I've never seen a player penalized for passing in a marginal situation where an expert player would surmise that the UI probably suggested taking an action.

[billw55]

Interesting, I would not consider this double as obvious as others do. In the end I would double, mostly on the theory that defending two of a major at matchpoints usually stinks anyway. But I definitely consider pass, and probably tank long enough to give more UI back to partner