[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2012-October-25, 03:10, said:

"Dismissive" might have been a better characterisation - it just left me wishing I hadn't bothered to post - but I'm sure you didn't mean to FWIW, I broadly agree with the analysis Lamford gives on the first page of this thread (msg 15), the main conclusions of which were that bidding on is demonstrably suggested but that Pass is a LA. But I'm probably dragging this thread out beyond its natural lifespan.

Most I have spoken to since think that bidding on is normal, but Pass is a clear LA. And your summary is a broad sweep of their opinions.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2012-October-25, 18:13, said:

Most I have spoken to since think that bidding on is normal, but Pass is a clear LA. And your summary is a broad sweep of their opinions.

The fact that people think pass is an LA is interesting, but this doesn't make it an LA. How many people have you found who would (or might) actually choose pass in a UI-free auction?

(Sorry if this information already appears in one of your earlier posts.)

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-October-26, 01:47, said:

The fact that people think pass is an LA is interesting, but this doesn't make it an LA. How many people have you found who would (or might) actually choose pass in a UI-free auction?

(Sorry if this information already appears in one of your earlier posts.)

I asked five members of my club who I thought were about the same standard as the players at the table (who I established from the EBU site). Three passed, one bid 4D and one bid 4NT. Their comments were interesting. One, perhaps the strongest, thought you might not be safe at the four level if partner had a "lot of stuff in hearts and clubs". Another did not want to play the shi-tty (yes I know it is not hyphenated, but it would otherwise get censored) Five Diamonds at matchpoints. A third just thought partner has shown no interest.

gordontd asked earlier why I thought the views of the two consultants were more relevant than your view and wank's (that does not get censored, we know). I am not surprised to learn that they considered pass an LA, but would not have passed. Their task was to pretend they were of the same ability and playing the same methods as the alleged offenders, and then decide on their bid. I think they did this, and I do not think those that reject Pass as an LA are doing so.

[bluejak]

When you poll people you do so knowing that their views are not going to be identical to the pair who played the hand. Even if they play similar methods, that does not mean identical nor does it mean their judgement is identical.

If a pair who have had a good board make a bid, that is a perfectly good part of a poll. After all, they may [as I do] think that evening up a round is utter gibberish: they may always ignore the earlier result and they may always pass if this sequence comes up with this hand.

As I have warned before, TDs should use polls merely as an aid to judgement, and not just count votes. Furthermore, comments made with the replies are relevant. Similarly for people in forums who are polling. You do not dismiss a vote because the pair got a good board, or because they play a different system but have agreed to tell you what they think playing this system. It may affect the weight you give to their replies.

As someone said earlier in this thread you decide based on the evidence. People who had the same sequence and then made the critical call are evidence. The reason we do not use travellers as evidence - or as very low weighting evidence, to be technically accurate - is because we do not then check everyone is playing the same methods, or has had the same sequence to that point.

Liz Commins and I got a very good round to win an event against a very good pair in a Swiss Pairs. The next day the same pair thrashed us in the Swiss Teams! Part of the reason is that they bid a grand slam, just about with the odds, that made. Because of their opening bid I was unable to bid. At our team-mates' table the opening bid was overcalled with a two-suited overcall, and now team-mates did not bid it, arguing, correctly in my view, that it was against the odds. The luck of the game, but if someone was polling, bidding the grand at our table was correct, not doing so at their table was correct, and things like this make judgement difficult.

So please, do not ignore evidence, but do not give it too high a weighting: do not just count votes: listen to every bid of evidence, consider, consult, and make a judgement. On forums, consulting generally means reading the other posts.

[Sjoerds]

I guess South has 12-14 HP or else there is nothing that would stop me to go for slam.

I consider 4 ♦ meaning slam try (70%)
I consider pass (30%)

[NickRW]

FWIW, having decided to play this system and having elected to use it on the hand in question and having heard some sort of fit for my suit, I think I would have already decided to make, if necessary, two attempts to find slam prior to the 3NT call. Therefore I would not have thought pass was an LA even if partner had virtually turned to stone before bidding.

If I had worried that 3NT might the best spot at the form of scoring, I probably would have simply gambled 3NT as my first response.

Nick

[c_corgi]

Hi Nick. I think you are saying that you were the South player at the table.

NickRW, on 2012-October-31, 09:12, said:

FWIW, having decided to play this system and having elected to use it on the hand in question and having heard some sort of fit for my suit, I think I would have already decided to make, if necessary, two attempts to find slam prior to the 3NT call. Therefore I would not have thought pass was an LA even if partner had virtually turned to stone before bidding.

That sounds plausible. Is 1NT - 2red - 3D an alternative way of bidding the same hand?

NickRW, on 2012-October-31, 09:12, said:

If I had worried that 3NT might the best spot at the form of scoring, I probably would have simply gambled 3NT as my first response.

It was suggested upthread that having moved over 3NT you had no way of playing in 4NT. Is this correct and, if so, how much of a concern was it?

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2012-October-31, 10:57, said:

Hi Nick. I think you are saying that you were the South player at the table.

I think he was indicating what he would do in the hypothetical situation that he had chosen to bid the North hand this way. None of the pairs who made 6D had a player called Nick, nor one with a similar name to NickRW. Of course, anybody knowing one player at the table can identify all four from the EBU site, but, since Giggsgate, revealing his or her identity could be contempt of court ...

[NickRW]

I was saying what my thoughts would have been with the indicated hand - i.e. North hand - essentially in response to lamford's original question.

Had it been me I might well have wondered, after P opened a weak 1NT that, with an excess of high cards and playing MP, that 3NT would score as well as anything else even if we had a fit. So I just might have taken a view and gambled 3NT without further investigation. However, that isn't the situation. The actual player with the North hand decided to investigate - which I might have done too. And what I am saying, is with those hcp - and shape - and controls - and having found (some kind of) fit I would have made a second slam attempt.

Put it this way, what does North really expect South to do over 3♠ with a great many possible hands other than 3NT? North knows South is looking at an aceless hand. My argument is that if you investigate and find a fit, you're almost duty bound to bid again.

The issue of what to bid and whether or not they can stop short of slam after a 2nd attempt is sort of speculation - we are not told what their methods were other than some rather condescending comment that they probably can't stop.

And, no, I was not at the said tournament.

Nick

[lamford]

NickRW, on 2012-November-01, 05:26, said:

Put it this way, what does North really expect South to do over 3♠ with a great many possible hands other than 3NT?

Indeed, the two most likely options are a slow 3NT and a fast 3NT. I agree completely that moving is automatic over the former, and less than automatic over the latter. I would have bid 3S on the South hand, and 4D on the North hand, but the latter only without UI.

[NickRW]

Well, that is where we differ. I think moving again is auto regardless of how long P takes to bid.

You did ask for opinions - but seem to be reluctant to accept those that differ to yours.

Perhaps I'm a little biased by the fact that I know (or at least believe!) I could stop - whereas there seems to be some question over whether the actual players could or could not. But we don't have a definitive answer on that. I agree that if I were unsure about being able to stop then it is less clear cut - and therefore passing, after partner's pause, becomes something to be thought about at least. However, my point still is, if that were a worry, why investigate diamonds at all at this form of scoring? It doesn't make logical sense to me.

Something else worries me about this thread. There seems to be the suggestion that the players concerned probably couldn't stop after a second slam attempt and were not as capable as some other present at this tournament ("not the sharpest pencil") - and that we are likely therefore to find that pass was an LA because of it. The implication being that if we thought they were better players or a more seasoned pair or whatever - and therefore could stop after a 2nd attempt we would have let them off bidding after the pause. That seems to me that we are condoning a non-level playing field if that is the case.

Nick

[gordontd]

NickRW, on 2012-November-02, 04:35, said:

Well, that is where we differ. I think moving again is auto regardless of how long P takes to bid.

You did ask for opinions - but seem to be reluctant to accept those that differ to yours.

Yes, he does rather.

NickRW, on 2012-November-02, 04:35, said:

Perhaps I'm a little biased by the fact that I know (or at least believe!) I could stop - whereas there seems to be some question over whether the actual players could or could not. But we don't have a definitive answer on that. I agree that if I were unsure about being able to stop then it is less clear cut - and therefore passing, after partner's pause, becomes something to be thought about at least. However, my point still is, if that were a worry, why investigate diamonds at all at this form of scoring? It doesn't make logical sense to me.

Something else worries me about this thread. There seems to be the suggestion that the players concerned probably couldn't stop after a second slam attempt and were not as capable as some other present at this tournament ("not the sharpest pencil") - and that we are likely therefore to find that pass was an LA because of it. The implication being that if we thought they were better players or a more seasoned pair or whatever - and therefore could stop after a 2nd attempt we would have let them off bidding after the pause. That seems to me that we are condoning a non-level playing field if that is the case.

Nick

I'd missed this the first time, and am glad you pointed it out now as it gives me the opportunity to note that the players in question last year won an equivalent event to the one lamford & vampyr won at this event. I've also not seen any evidence that they wouldn't be able to stop in 4NT, and if it's an assumption I think it's a poor one.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-November-02, 08:40, said:

I've also not seen any evidence that they wouldn't be able to stop in 4NT, and if it's an assumption I think it's a poor one.

I wrote: "The appellant claimed that the pair would not have been able to stop in 4NT after they chose 4D (Blackwoood, pard ...), but I await the official report of the AC to confirm or deny that." So no assumption was made; the facts as I had them were stated. Is the AC report available, and can it be posted on here?

[lamford]

NickRW, on 2012-November-02, 04:35, said:

You did ask for opinions - but seem to be reluctant to accept those that differ to yours.

I think it is extremely rare for someone to change their opinion based on the views of others. I can only remember one time when I changed my view during the thread, and that was as a result of doing a simulation which showed that my original view was wrong.

I posted this one to find out whether Pass was an LA, on a hand I was shown by the appellant. I already shared the views of others that moving on was right without UI. I still disagree with the majority who consider moving on is "auto", but that is because of those I have personally polled and the results on the traveller. In many cases, the traveller will indeed not be significant evidence, but here we have a weak NT opposite a slam try, with no opposition bidding at all likely. Those playing a strong NT would have had more room. It seems very probable that the majority of pairs were faced with the decision whether to move over 3NT and less than half of them chose to do so. Theirs are the relevant views, not those of the experts on here.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-November-02, 08:40, said:

I've also not seen any evidence that they wouldn't be able to stop in 4NT, and if it's an assumption I think it's a poor one.

I spoke to the appellant tonight and he stated that the AC had specifically asked his opponents whether they could stop in 4NT if North had moved and they stated that they could not. He also confirmed, as you established, that the two consultants had stated that they thought pass was a logic alternative and did not state that they would pass, as I had understood.

[JLOGIC]

I would never consider passing