[blackshoe]

The determination of what constitutes an LA is not made in the laws nor in most places in regulations. It is, therefore, a matter of TD discretion.I think this was done deliberately in view of the idea that it is unlikely that a law or regulation on the subject could adequately cover all possible situations.

Attempts to quantify what constitutes an LA may impact adversely on the TD's use of his judgement in some cases. For that reason, as well as difficulty in finding enough people to make a meaningful poll, the "7 in 10" or "2.4 in 10", or whatever numbers you care to state, is a guideline only. OTOH, if the TD is prepared to rule outside the guideline, he must also be willing to accept being overturned by the committee — and he should have a pretty good argument as to why he didn't follow the guideline if he's to have any hope of the AC upholding his ruling.

I don't think putting anyone's idea of what the guideline should be into law (or regulation) as a hard and fast rule is a good idea. IAC, discussion of that question belongs in our Changing Laws and Regulations forum.

[OleBerg]

blackshoe, on Sep 4 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

The determination of what constitutes an LA is not made in the laws nor in most places in regulations. It is, therefore, a matter of TD discretion.I think this was done deliberately in view of the idea that it is unlikely that a law or regulation on the subject could adequately cover all possible situations.

Attempts to quantify what constitutes an LA may impact adversely on the TD's use of his judgement in some cases. For that reason, as well as difficulty in finding enough people to make a meaningful poll, the "7 in 10" or "2.4 in 10", or whatever numbers you care to state, is a guideline only. OTOH, if the TD is prepared to rule outside the guideline, he must also be willing to accept being overturned by the committee — and he should have a pretty good argument as to why he didn't follow the guideline if he's to have any hope of the AC upholding his ruling.

I don't think putting anyone's idea of what the guideline should be into law (or regulation) as a hard and fast rule is a good idea. IAC, discussion of that question belongs in our Changing Laws and Regulations forum.

Though I think I agree with this, it is not without problems.

It leaves very much in the hands of the TD's approach to the game.

Just judging from this thread, David might find that for a player passing initially, passing 3♠ is not an LA. Meanwhile others, like Gnasher (Andy Bowles), would find that if you pass 3♠, you are capable of many strange things. And it wouldn't be unreasonable for a TD to be of the same opinion as Andy.

So two different players would get two different verdicts, depending on the TD. Of course we have committees to sort such things out, but the same problem might apply there.

[hotShot]

First of all we do need to recognize that this is a matter of agreement.

If it's a partnership agreement that a direct bid over 2NT (limit raise) shows a stronger hand than the one West held, than North 3♥ bid showing a hand to weak to bid game, creates a new opportunity to decide. If you were forced to make a maximum pass last round, passing is no longer a LA.

If it's within the partnership agreements to bid this hand over 2NT, than bidding over 3♥ is redoing a decision already made last round. If pass was an alternative last round it surely is this round. The TD does not need to poll other player.

So the TD has to investigate the partnership agreement and in the first case his poll has to be:

If you were forced to pass over 2NT would you bid now?

From the OP we know:

Quote

W explains that NS are limited, so he says that even without BIT he would have bid 3♠

Unfortunately most player don't know, which magical word they have to say to the TD.
In this case he should have said:

Quote

By agreement I was not strong enough to bid over 2NT, so I'm happy to get another chance to show my hand now

Since West did not state this, the TD should in doubt decide in favor of the NOS, leaving it to a committee to investigate further.

[bluejak]

You say 5 out of 5 would bid 3♠. But did any of them consider pass? Under the old rules, you wanted to know what percentage would choose the call: nowadays the most critical question is how many would consider it.

As to the percentages, I think the top level laws people think you should not use percentages at all: Max Bavin does not believe in them, for example. But I think they are wrong: I believe one of the problems with lawmakers is they aim too high, and forget that most rulings are given at club level by club level TDs.

As to what is the official view, in the EBU/WBU we believe if two out of ten would consider an action, of whom some would actually choose it, some being not zero nor only maniacs, then it is an LA. But most authorities have not given such guidance. I do not go so far as Ed in saying it is "a matter of TD discretion" because the TD should learn from other sources, not just decide for himself. He might be trained: he might read something produced by his RA or TO: he might read IBLF or RGB or BLML: he might read Appeals booklets.

[blackshoe]

I agree that a TD's discretion should be well informed - either by training, or by his own research, or by consulting. But it's still his discretion - and I don't think we want TDs to go back to "make some ruling, and let the AC sort it out". I would not, for example, "leave it to a committee to investigate further" unless I'm severely time-constrained. If I feel there's something to investigate, I'll do that — it's my job.

[peachy]

hotShot, on Sep 4 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

Since West did not state this, the TD should in doubt decide in favor of the NOS, leaving it to a committee to investigate further.

This is bad TD practice.
It is the TD's job to investigate until he is satisfied and has enough data to make a lawful and reasoned ruling.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 08:44 AM, said:

As to what is the official view, in the EBU/WBU we believe if two out of ten would consider an action, of whom some would actually choose it, some being not zero nor only maniacs, then it is an LA. But most authorities have not given such guidance.

Is there an official view on what proportion of bridge players are maniacs?

For the original question, fwiw, I would bid 3♠, but would consider pass (am I pushing them into a game?). I would have passed over 2NT for the same reason that others gave.

[Codo]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

You say 5 out of 5 would bid 3♠. But did any of them consider pass? Under the old rules, you wanted to know what percentage would choose the call: nowadays the most critical question is how many would consider it.

English is not my native language, so please excuse if I ask a too simple question, but I understand "to consider " as: "to think about".

If this is the right expression, I always think about any possible bid, because I need to judge which one I choose. I thought that all players would do this through their bidding process. So yes, I may thought about passing and found it so wrong that I would never judge this is a possible alternative.

Or is "to consider": Being close to make this bid? This is a bid tricky, because I would be much closer to passing then to bid 7 NT f.e. What is close? For me, all bids but 3 Spade and passing would get a zero, passing a 10 and 3 Spade a 100. Is this close enough to consider pass?

[campboy]

The phrase actually used in the law is "given serious consideration", not just considered.

[bluejak]

I do not really believe you consider every bid, you know.

Scoring: MP

1NT P ?

---

1NT shows 12-14.

Do you consider 3NT? Probably
Do you consider 2NT [natural]? Quite likely
Do you consider 2C [Stayman]? Yes
Do you consider 5♥? No
Do you consider 7♦? No

I do not believe you think about every bid: no-one does. Why would you think about 5♥ and 7♦? That is ridiculous, surely?

[mycroft]

Count me in for the 4S directly, so I'm out of the poll. But...

How does N/S make a game-forcing raise of hearts? They happen, you know, especially when doubler's partner has a 2-count. The standard over here is that 1M-X-2NT is "limit raise *or better*" - and that's why I bid 4S off the mark. If they show game values, and then I bid 4S, they're more likely to get it right than if I do it right away. Also, 4Sx might just go for 100 (if not vul) and beat 3H, if they don't think they have game (yes, 3S would do better yet, but how do we get there and stay there?) And it might even make - and when it does, it's likely that 4H makes as well.

After 4S, if North has a "accept game" hand, how does he show it? If South has a "or better" hand, how does he know if North has the extras that make 5H on or the extras that set 4S (or the hand that needs to sacrifice)?

Having said that, the "limit raise or better" might convince others to pass first, and bid 3S over 3H; if they're going to game, he doesn't want to sacrifice, but he won't sit for a partscore. If it pushes N/S to game, they've already said they don't have the values for it - maybe it's wrong (or maybe it's Matchpoints - where it's a "top or bottom" decision rather than a "risk -6 to gain 5 if I'm lucky, 1 if I'm not". Why should we assume that if they now go game it's because they guessed wrong the first time?), or maybe it's right and he just screwed up. Oh well.

[axman]

Codo, on Sep 4 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 4 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

If pass is an LA, Al, then 3♠ is not evident.

I rephrase my question:

Up to now, 5 from 5 players who posted here have said that they had bid 3 Spade and that pass is no LA.

I think that the point of view is relevant, for example given the subject auction, how many reasonable players would be willing to lay say 10 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract?; I’ll lay those odds. Why, because E was considering taking the auction to the 4 level.

And then, of these same reasonable players, after changing doubler’s hand to a minimum non descript [double] and changing the bidding to good tempo, how many would lay even 5 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract? I wouldn’t lay even money.

I’ve seen hands like this go for 800 when even 300 was too much. I’ve seen the opponents time and again blast off into a slam they decided to play in a partial -after pard bids 3S on such a hand.

On some occasions I will bid 3S, but none will be occasions when UI is available such as described here.

[hotShot]

It's always the same.
If you don't start with a poll in the BI-Section asking what to bid, only presenting the bidding and one hand, you will never get an unbiased poll.

[bali 2]

Codo, on Sep 8 2009, 04:25 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

You say 5 out of 5 would bid 3♠.  But did any of them consider pass?  Under the old rules, you wanted to know what percentage would choose the call: nowadays the most critical question is how many would consider it.

English is not my native language, so please excuse if I ask a too simple question, but I understand "to consider " as: "to think about".

If this is the right expression, I always think about any possible bid, because I need to judge which one I choose. I thought that all players would do this through their bidding process. So yes, I may thought about passing and found it so wrong that I would never judge this is a possible alternative.

Or is "to consider": Being close to make this bid? This is a bid tricky, because I would be much closer to passing then to bid 7 NT f.e. What is close? For me, all bids but 3 Spade and passing would get a zero, passing a 10 and 3 Spade a 100. Is this close enough to consider pass?

"To consider" is not, in my opinion, to think about. I think it is "to be thinking of doing", to view something, to have during a moment the intention to do something or to say something.
So , if West was only for moment thinking of passing, he was "considering " passing, and this was a simple alternative. When his partner breaks tempo, that simple alternative becomes a Logical Alternative, and the TD cannot allow him to bid 3S.
This is my opinion, but I agree completly that it is very hard for West to pass with a hand worth "considering " 4S...
Thank you all for your interesting opinions
Al. Ohana