[badderzboy]

As suggested before the director when he initially arrives at the table should not decide himself if there was UI used or not unless it is blatently obvious but allow the hand to be played and ask to be called back if the opps feel damaged and then poll players of equivalent ability to see if the bid is allowed.

I would do this at the end of the session or after the board has been played a reasonable number of times without quoting the board number to the players as a bidding quiz.

Steve

[Trinidad]

awm, on Feb 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Instead, [the director] poll[s] a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select.

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA.

As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question.

That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's.

To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision.

Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer.

If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat.

Rik

[Codo]

Trinidad, on Feb 22 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

awm, on Feb 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Instead, [the director] poll[s] a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select.

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA.

As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question.

That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's.

To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision.

Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer.

If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat.

Rik

Rules differ in different countries, but in which country do they still use this concept?

I know your apporach had been legal in the US, but I thought that they changed it even there. (But this is more a question then a statement).

If a LA is defined in this way by your laws, fine then it is as it is. But I have my doubts that you will find this apporach in the current laws or in the wbo minutes.

And I am quite sure that here where I life, some peers must choose this bid, it is not enough to think about it.

And I really don´t like "your" approach. When I think about a hand, I always think about all possibilities- so in this case, any bid would be UI and this would basically forbid your partner to think for a while about a bid and pass. I doubt that this is in the spirit of the law.
If all say, it is 60 % for 3 Spade and 40 % for passing and they choose to bid, then passing is no LA. But in my (limited) experience this does not happen. If the call is so close, there will be peers who will chhose to pass.

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Feb 14 2008, 01:04 AM, said:

I'd bar 3♠ over an inv. 3♣ call but I think I'd allow it over a signoff. At MPs anyway.

But if 3♣ is invitational, p is broke and his hesitation must be based on distribution. So I'd rather say that you are barred from passing, since p's hesitation makes it more dangerous to bid. This is somewhat far-fetched so I would allow pass anyway, but barring you from bidding is backwards IMHO.

If 3♣ is sign-off, RHO range is wider so partner's is as well and therefore the hesitation gives us more information about partner's strength. Still it is not clear to me whether the hesitation suggest bidding or passing.

What we don't want is that if the UI may suggest either action depending on your reasoning, you are barred from passing and also from bidding so no matter what you do you will a good score adjusted away. I think to adjust it must be very clear that the action taken was suggested by the UI.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Feb 22 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

awm, on Feb 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Instead, [the director] poll[s] a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select.

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA.

As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question.

That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's.

To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision.

Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer.

If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat.

Rik

Rules differ in different countries, but in which country do they still use this concept?

I know your apporach had been legal in the US, but I thought that they changed it even there. (But this is more a question then a statement).

If a LA is defined in this way by your laws, fine then it is as it is. But I have my doubts that you will find this apporach in the current laws or in the wbo minutes.

And I am quite sure that here where I life, some peers must choose this bid, it is not enough to think about it.

And I really don´t like "your" approach. When I think about a hand, I always think about all possibilities- so in this case, any bid would be UI and this would basically forbid your partner to think for a while about a bid and pass. I doubt that this is in the spirit of the law.
If all say, it is 60 % for 3 Spade and 40 % for passing and they choose to bid, then passing is no LA. But in my (limited) experience this does not happen. If the call is so close, there will be peers who will chhose to pass.

Roland,

This is not a rule. The rule is in the Lawbook. There it says that you may not choose, from logical alternatives, one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the UI.

When the case is brought to the TD, it is up to the TD to determine what the LA's were. The absolutely easiest way (often overlooked) is to ask the player who (allegedly) used the UI what bids he was considering. If that gives you an answer (and it surprisingly often does), there is no need to do any polling.

If that doesn't work, the director has to find another way to figure out what the LA's were. He can do that by himself, or he can ask the help from others.

Since the range of possible LA's may very from 1 to 2 to 10, it would be plain silly to fix conditions as to when a poll is suggesting that an action is an LA. (Some SO's have guidelines, but I would definitely not see them as rules.)

There are cases where 2 out of 10 will pass out a game bid (but strongly consider making a move towards slam) and the other 8 will make 8 different moves towards slam, some simply bidding it and others probing for a grand or giving a choice of slams. If those 8 will tell you that they could imagine making another kind of move towards slam, but never to pass it out in game, is passing then an LA? (Hey it did get most votes.)

And there are cases where there are only 2 possible alternatives (bidding 3♠ or passing). You cannot possibly set the same criteria for these cases and fortunately TDs and ACs (and most SO's) don't.

In practice, a good player recognizes the LA's when he is asked. If four good players all state that they could choose bidding 3♠ or passing, they are both LA's. I don't need to force them to pick one. I already have all the information I need.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik,

You mention multiple definitions of "logical alternative", but the only one that matters is the WBF's:

Quote

A ‘logical alternative’ is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it.

Close enough to your preference, I think, but the point is that there is an official definition, and we should all use it.

The TD does not poll because he is incapable of seeing logical alternatives. What the LAs are is a judgement, and in any case where judgement is required, the TD should check with others to ensure that his judgement is reasonable. That is why TDs poll.

I agree that the form of the question is important - but that's a common problem with any poll.

[LH2650]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

LH2650, on Feb 15 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

the Director has been summoned, and he has instructed me to ignore the UI.

Then he has given you wrong advice.

The ACBL went to some trouble to incorporate the proper instructions into Duplicate Decisions. Ignore it if you wish.

[jdonn]

LH2650, on Feb 22 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

LH2650, on Feb 15 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

the Director has been summoned, and he has instructed me to ignore the UI.

Then he has given you wrong advice.

The ACBL went to some trouble to incorporate the proper instructions into Duplicate Decisions. Ignore it if you wish.

You are completely correct Duplicate Decisions instructs the director to do that. And it's still an illegal thing to do, because it is impossible to follow law 16A ("the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.") if you simply try to ignore the hesitation and do what you would have done anyway. There is nothing in the laws about bidding what you want and leaving it to the director to change the score if he wants. The law specifically says you MAY NOT CHOOSE blah blah blah that may have been suggested by the UI.

[jtfanclub]

LH2650, on Feb 22 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

LH2650, on Feb 15 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

the Director has been summoned, and he has instructed me to ignore the UI.

Then he has given you wrong advice.

The ACBL went to some trouble to incorporate the proper instructions into Duplicate Decisions. Ignore it if you wish.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...0Decisions&st=0

I think the short answer here is that Director Decisions is simply wrong on this, was at the very least extremely unclear.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Feb 22 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

Rik,

You mention multiple definitions of "logical alternative", but the only one that matters is the WBF's:

Quote

A ‘logical alternative’ is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it.

Close enough to your preference, I think, but the point is that there is an official definition, and we should all use it.

This is exactly what I meant. This WBF definition is much better than something like "30% of the peers would take this action". So I am strongly in favor of the WBF definition.

You seem to be quite sure that this definition is universal. I thought, however, the WBF definition was from the WBF conditions of contest (CoC). That means it is used in all competitions where the WBF is the SO. However, other SO's are allowed to have different CoCs, meaning that this definition is not universal.

But I may easily be wrong. The WBF Laws Committee also publishes how the Laws should be interpreted. These interpretations are universal.

Rik

[blackshoe]

The definition is from the WBF Code of Practice, and does apply to more than just contests where the WBF is the SO.

[LH2650]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

[You are completely correct Duplicate Decisions instructs the director to do that. And it's still an illegal thing to do, because it is impossible to follow law 16A ...

I am not violating Law 16 for the reason previously given. If you would like clarification, you might check out the November 2004 Bridge World editorial, but do so only if you are willing to have your position called "irredeemably horrible".

This problem might be a prime example of why your misinterpretation of Law 16 can lead to trouble. Since I, and the 4 people I polled, all bid 3S, I claim that that is an LA. What about "pass"? Is it a phantom LA? So far, no one has explicitly stated that he would pass. Until that happens, it cannot be considered.

[jdonn]

LH2650, on Feb 23 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

[You are completely correct Duplicate Decisions instructs the director to do that. And it's still an illegal thing to do, because it is impossible to follow law 16A ...

I am not violating Law 16 for the reason previously given. If you would like clarification, you might check out the November 2004 Bridge World editorial, but do so only if you are willing to have your position called "irredeemably horrible".

This problem might be a prime example of why your misinterpretation of Law 16 can lead to trouble. Since I, and the 4 people I polled, all bid 3S, I claim that that is an LA. What about "pass"? Is it a phantom LA? So far, no one has explicitly stated that he would pass. Until that happens, it cannot be considered.

Huh?

I never said you can't bid 3♠ on the given hand. I said you can't (legally) just ignore the hesitation and bid whatever you would have bid without considering logical alternatives. If you believe pass isn't one on the given hand then well done, you have acted legally.

I'm sorry you consider a direct quote of the law, taken in context, to be a misinterpretation that is "irredeemably horrible".

BTW, people are no less able to figure out at the table what is a logical alternative than they are able to figure out what they would have done without UI that, try as they might, is impossible to completely ignore. Haven't you ever asked someone to not think of pink elephants?

[LH2650]

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

I'm sorry you consider a direct quote of the law, taken in context, to be a misinterpretation that is "irredeemably horrible".

I didn't make that statement, The Bridge World did. I suppose I should quote part of their editorial:

"Even though this law speaks only to what a player should not do, it is occasionally misinterpreted into a positive suggestion to evaluate alternatives in the light of the UI. That evaluation is something that a director or appeals committee might well undertake, but for a player to do it would be to use UI as part of the basis for choosing an action. Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible." [Italics theirs.]

[blackshoe]

The Bridge World's logic is flawed.