BBO Discussion Forums: loads of LA - BBO Discussion Forums

aguahombre, on 2012-May-19, 09:22, said:

Thank you.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-19, 09:22, said:

That is why it horrifies me that some TDs will hand out PPs in cases like this. For most people it is extremely hard to do.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-19, 09:22, said:

As long as the wreck is pretty much "the worst wreck possible", I have no problem with that. But people (not you) sometimes come up with wrecks that look better than they deserve (e.g. blasting 7♠-3 where a careful auction would/might have led to 7NTXX-many). It is less likely that the opponents will call the TD if they have a score of 80% on the board, even if they are entitled to a score of 100%. The offenders might respond: "You got a good board. What more do you want?" (and, unfortunately, some TDs will respond the same).

Rik

Well, my better half (without the UI) insists 3H is the only rebid for responder. So, maybe 4NT to avoid the torture is not a L.A.

Can they rule that even though I obtained a bad result, I didn't make myself miserable long enough while doing it, and add a PP?

aguahombre, on 2012-May-20, 08:42, said:

We put off changing to playing transfer responses for ages because it's something that, if you forget, is more or less guaranteed to ensure a train wreck.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-20, 08:42, said:

Can they? Sure. Should they? Probably not.

First of all, let me dispose of a red herring. It is not just a question of LAs: we have discussed this many times here, on other forums, and in various other places, and it is accepted under some Law or other that a TD or AC can disallow a call that is not an LA if it is suggested over an LA by the UI. If anyone does not understand this or wants to challenge this assertion, feel free, but please start another thread, please do not hijack this one.

So it is not just a question of LAs. For example, I do not think 6♥ is an LA, but it might work to shut partner up, and I would definitely rule it back if it worked.

As to logical bids, it is difficult to see beyond 3♥ if 4NT would be RKCB, because the ♠K is not relevant. On the other hand, if playing simple Blackwood, 4NT seems obvious: after a natural 2♠ rebid surely you are bidding a grand if you are not missing an ace?

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:33, said:

This is getting off the purpose of the thread, but HUH????
If I hold AXX of the alleged trump suit, how can the spade king (and maybe Queen) not be relevant? (KQXX X AKX AQJXX)

I have not gone through all the possible hands, but my instinct is that if partner does not have the ♠K then the compensating values needed to force to game means you have 13 tricks anyway.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-21, 11:40, said:

I don't think anyone is proposing ever playing in 7♠. Those who bid 4NT were presumably looking for 7NT.

Opposite the hand you give you want to be in 7NT. Opposite Qxxx, x, AKx, AKQJx you want to be in 7NT. Opposite KQxx, x, KQx, AKQJx you want to be in 6NT. If 4NT is simple blackwood then it will distinguish between the last two hands; if it is RKCB for spades it will not.

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:33, said:

In disposing of this particular red herring it is simplest to quote the WBFLC minutes from Philadelphia in 2010: "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."

gnasher, on 2012-May-21, 16:42, said:

This comes up so often -- perhaps the next version of the Laws can make it clear that being a "logical alternative" is a basis for being "ruled in", not "ruled out".

Grattan Endicott once suggested to me that the intended meaning of the phrase "logical alternative" is something more like "plausible alternative for the class of player concerned". That was before the 2007 laws were drafted, so for the life of me I don't know why they didn't change the wording in the law.

"Plausible" is a good word, because it seems to leave no doubt that the call actually chosen is included.