[awm]

The issue is: "what does it mean for pass to be a logical alternative"? (whether bidding on over 3NT is an LA is not really relevant here)

Certainly if you just look at the auction (ignoring the hand) it seems like pass is the only logical alternative.

If you try to poll only people who would rebid 2♦ with the given hand, you're not going to get much of a sample size (and the people you get will be such bad players, who knows what they will say).

If you poll players in general, you may have to justify the 2♦ call. If you tell them "you came to the table as a sub, this call was just there already" then I suspect that pass is not a logical alternative.

My point is that if you believe that the dealer just misbid at second turn, perhaps because his hand was missorted, then you should be polling players in general with the explanation that the 2♦ bid was due to missorting the hand, or was just there when they arrived. Now I don't think pass is an LA. If you believe that the dealer bid 2♦ because he's a terrible player and this is how he evaluates hands, then you have to try to find his peers and poll them.

Of course, since the UI doesn't appear to make bidding on more favorable, we can avoid this whole polling issue and just rule result stands.

[bluejak]

TimG, on Nov 24 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

• a LA was the chosen action;

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

TimG, on Nov 24 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

• the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI;

Not enough: demonstrably suggested over an LA by the UI.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Nov 23 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Law 16 says "cannot choose from amongst logical alternatives… (emphasis mine). Clearly this is one case, at least, where we cannot determine what the law is simply by reading what it says — and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like that at all.

[TimG]

bluejak, on Nov 23 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

TimG, on Nov 24 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

• a LA was the chosen action;

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

TimG, on Nov 24 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

• the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI;

Not enough: demonstrably suggested over an LA by the UI.

I was attempting to follow this:

bluejak @ Aug 1 2009, on 02:59 PM, said:

To adjust for UI you need:


    * UI from partner, and
    * an LA to the chosen action, and
    * the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and
    * damage caused by the choice

Now, since you need all of them, it is very reasonable to look at any one first.  So, for eample, if you determine there are no LAs to the chosen action you need go no further: no adjustment.

Despite often seeing in print an order as how you should approach UI, that is wrong: you look at whichever feature is easiest in case that is enough to decide no adjustment.

And made an error when I changed "an LA to the chosen action" to "a LA was the chosen action". I thought it looked odd and should have been more careful. My mistake.

But, I find it surprising that you would be critical of

"the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI"

when you previously said

"the chosen action to be suggested by the UI"

and later defended your choice of words with:

bluejak @ Aug 2 2009, on 06:42 AM, said:

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list].  We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

[aguahombre]

I wish the hand in question had one less diamond and one more spade, and elsewise was a bit weaker. The lunacy of the 2D bid is so "demonstratively" obvious that it is not a good case in point -- being the all-too frequent situation where there is a limit bid and a signoff, then more bidding. this ain't the hand. I retract my earlier post and reserve the right to belabor the issue with a different hand.

With this hand, the hesitation would have to be followed by some other distraction (maybe a second cow flying by) to keep me from waking up and bidding more.

[jeremy69]

We all seem agreed that 2D is a massive underbid. There is no evidence to suggest that the player missorted his hand so given that was what he thought it worth on the previous round what has happened for him to take a rosier view and bid on over 3NT? Well, of course, his partner bid 3NT slowly. Could partner have been thinking of other things such as "Am I worth 2NT or 3NT?" or "Should I look for an alternative game?" Well, yes of course but one reason for partner thinking is that he is a bit good for 3NT and I think this is quite a likely reason as evidenced by what we are told about the actual hand. The 2D bidder can guess to do what they like but not if they are in receipt of UI and on this hand I think they likely are.

[bluejak]

TimG, on Nov 24 2009, 03:45 AM, said:

But, I find it surprising that you would be critical of

"the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI"

when you previously said

"the chosen action to be suggested by the UI"

and later defended your choice of words with:

bluejak @ Aug 2 2009, on 06:42 AM, said:

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list].  We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

I suppose the difference in my mind is between a general discussion which often uses shortcuts and less accurate comments which are understood, and what looks like a list of basic requirements. In the latter case I expect it to be more accurate.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 03:04 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 23 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Hmmm.  It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement.  I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Law 16 says "cannot choose from amongst logical alternatives… (emphasis mine). Clearly this is one case, at least, where we cannot determine what the law is simply by reading what it says — and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like that at all.

Look, Ed, it has been discussed before many times. At its simplest, I do not even agree with your reading of this sentence and feel it can be interpreted differently. As others have pointed out you can approach it via different Laws.

No doubt others are interested, perhaps having not seen the earlier threads, but if we wish to discuss the legal basis again, please start a new thread.



Hope to see some of you in San Diego soon.

[blackshoe]

I don't see any need to belabor it, David, or to start another thread. But this is one point on which you and I disagree, and will probably always disagree. Let's just leave it at that.