[Fluffy]

passing 2♠ certainly is a LA in my local club with most pairs above 60

[the hog]

Well I am above 60, and passing is ridiculous at MPs. Ask any experienced player.

[bluejak]

the hog, on 2012-January-02, 22:30, said:

Well I am above 60, and passing is ridiculous at MPs. Ask any experienced player.

Would you have passed over 1♠? I would not, nor, I fancy would most experienced players.

The question is whether passing 2♠ is a possibility for a player who believes a pass over 1♠ is correct. So asking "any experienced player" whether they pass 2♠ is unhelpful.

What you want to know is the following:

Of people who consider a pass over 1♠ correct:

• Would a significant number, say one in five, consider pass?
  
• Of those who consider pass, would a number, say two or more, actually pass?

I believe that if you managed to find players who agreed with the pass over 1♠ a fair number of them would pass again, so I think pass is clearly an LA.



No, MultiQuote is still not working with IE.

No, I have not misused it: when I click on MultiQuote it has the same effect as clicking on Reply.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, now I remember. I reverted to IE8 with which multiquote works just fine. Barmar in another thread on the problem suggested changing the compatibility mode when using IE9 might solve the multiquote issue.

[mycroft]

I agree with barmar that this is an auto-call; I might be 200, or much much more, but I strongly attempt to avoid letting the opponents play 2-of-a-fit at matchpoints (to the point where I say "never", and mean "for bridge values of never").

Having said that, I am almost certainly going to rule as Robin: pass is *clearly* something players would consider (knowing at best they have 21 high and a potentially useless ♠K), and I also can't imagine not doing something over 1♦-(1♠). I don't play 2♥ NF here, so I'm going to have to double (or bid 3♥, which would cross my mind).

So, we take my (and barmar's, and the hog's) ideas on what to do out of the equation, because we obviously aren't this player's peers. Any comment about what "good players" or "experts" would do is also out of the equation, because we aren't talking about what the best bid is, or what the right bid is; the Law says we have to consider what peers of this player - who passed over 1♠ - would do, and they're known to be "not experts". I'm finding it difficult to believe that anybody who wouldn't show life over 1♠ would *not seriously consider passing* 2♠; my judgement would be that some fraction of those players would actually *do it*.

[Edit to add: but this is just one person's opinion; there's a reason why TDs are expected to consult on *all* judgement rulings, and in this case, the opinion of someone who can't believe the auction as stated happened (and by that I mean me) isn't of much weight, unless we can't find anybody who *can* believe the auction as stated - in which case we do our best.]

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-January-03, 11:12, said:

I agree with barmar that this is an auto-call; I might be 200, or much much more, but I strongly attempt to avoid letting the opponents play 2-of-a-fit at matchpoints (to the point where I say "never", and mean "for bridge values of never").

Did I say that? I said that since opener is limited, it's MORE dangerous to balance with such a weak hand.

[mycroft]

Argh, barmar, I read you wrong.

I read it as "a call is auto, and once you've decided that, this call is auto." Reading what you said again, that is clearly not what you said.

I think that passing out 2♠ is insane; but having said that, I wouldn't have this problem, because passing 1♠ is even less likely to appeal to me.