[mrdct]

It would be worthwhile to have a look at the North-South system card to see if 1NT can be opened with a 5-card major as there is a clear tick-box for that agreement in the very first section on the standard ABF system card; or at least enquire of North-South as to whetehr or not they have any agreement in that regard. This is germane as to whether or not South can legally infer from the 2♥ bid that North has mistakenly treated the 2♦ bid as a transfer.

It is a clear infraction by North to have described 2♦ as a transfer when the actual agreement is "no agreement" or "undiscussed". At the very least North gets PP for that.

Had North correctly described 2♦ as "no agreement" East would be in a much better position to bid 3♥ over 2♥, but I think with the ♥Kx, 6 ♣ tricks and working ♦Q (North will now be in on the gag that South has a ♦ suit) North will still bid 3NT and East won't find a ♠ lead.

Another point to consider is whether East's failure to simply overcall 4♥ immediately was a SEWoG, but we are told she is inexperienced so I don't think we need to go down that path.

[VixTD]

.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-November-02, 19:21, said:

I don't think you understand.

Don't worry about me, I understand very well.

Quote

Whether an action is an LA is judged principally on the proportion of players who would seriously consider it.

Yes...

Quote

The chance of an action being successful is something completely different.

Sorry for the confusion -- I meant an action chosen by 10% of players. This terminology was common under the old regulation, where something was called a "70%" action.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-03, 08:50, said:

Sorry for the confusion -- I meant an action chosen by 10% of players. This terminology was common under the old regulation, where something was called a "70%" action.

Sure, this is why I was careful never to use the phrase "x% action". In my example no-one would seriously consider B because A is almost nine times as likely to be successful. In the same way, no-one who bids 2♦ after 1NT (dbl*), knowing that there is no agreement on it, and hears 2♥ from partner, will seriously consider that partner thought 2♦ was natural.

*artificial double; I do not think the same argument applies after a penalty double because it is rare to play system on in that case.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2011-November-03, 09:27, said:

Sure, this is why I was careful never to use the phrase "x% action". In my example no-one would seriously consider B because A is almost nine times as likely to be successful.

Isn't that a conclusion after consideration? I have always had problems with that part of L.A. discussions. And it doesn't help much because the word "serious" is included.

I consider alternatives and conclude (sometimes correctly) that they are not good ones, then choose another. Does everyone else's mind have the capability of never considering the ones which are unlikely to be successful at all? At what point did my passing thought about a bad action become non-serious?

Do these passing thoughts make me a non-peer of the player who made the call at the table?

[campboy]

I would not bother to think about it along those lines at the table; it is just obvious that partner thought it was a transfer. The only consideration I required was to determine whether the alternative is a logical one, not whether I would take it!

Anyway, I would think that something which is rejected almost instantly has not been seriously considered. When the disparity between alternatives is so great, little or no consideration is required.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-04, 10:04, said:

Isn't that a conclusion after consideration? I have always had problems with that part of L.A. discussions. And it doesn't help much because the word "serious" is included.

I consider alternatives and conclude (sometimes correctly) that they are not good ones, then choose another. Does everyone else's mind have the capability of never considering the ones which are unlikely to be successful at all? At what point did my passing thought about a bad action become non-serious?

Do these passing thoughts make me a non-peer of the player who made the call at the table?

My guess is that in most situations, you either have one obvious action, or you just have to choose between 2, or sometimes 3, alternatives. There maybe lots of other legal actions, but they're irrelevant and experienced players ignore them without even thinking about it. For instance, when partner opens on the 1 level, there are at least 30 possible responses, but if you have a normal hand with 6-10 HCP none of the slam try bids would even cross your mind. If it does, you're obviously thinking of it as some kind of joke, not "serious".

Your through processes might be more like:

Decision 1: raise partner or bid my own suit?
If raise, decision 2: Single raise, double raise, or start with forcing NT?
If own suit, decision 2: Bid it immediately, or start with forcing NT?

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-02, 11:20, said:

A 10% action is most definitely a logical alternative in the UK. I do not have the White Book to hand, but I believe that a logical alternative is one that 15 out of 100 peers would consider, of which one or two would actually do it.

Which raises a question -- can anyone tell me how a logical alternative works when, say, only 5% of players would consider an action, but all of them would do it?

If an action is a 10% action, then I do not believe that 15% of peers will even consider it so I do not believe it is an LA.

If an action will only be considered by 5% of peers then it is not an LA.



I see there have been other answers so sorry if I am merely repeating.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-November-08, 11:11, said:

If an action is a 10% action, then I do not believe that 15% of peers will even consider it so I do not believe it is an LA.

If an action will only be considered by 5% of peers then it is not an LA.



I see there have been other answers so sorry if I am merely repeating.

Well I will have to repeat myself since some people choose to comment without reading all of the posts...

I used "10% action" in the way that used to be very common, meaning an action that 10% of the peers will choose. Sorry for the confusion.

[bluejak]

When I go away I come back and reply to posts as I read them.

campboy, on 2011-November-01, 17:18, said:

If you have a choice between action A, which is right 90% of the time, and action B which is right the remaining 10% of the time, and the costs of being wrong are similar, then it just isn't a logical alternative to choose B, even though it could work out better. For the situation in question 10% is a massive overestimate IMO.

I am sorry: I really do not see how this means "that 10% of people would choose".