[mfa1010]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-03, 08:21, said:

Another proof that polling players who have played the hand is not a good idea.

Maybe a better idea is to switch suits and ask them about a equivalent yet completelly different bidding without showing cards.


1NT-pass-2♦-2♠
3♥-pass-4♥-5♣
X - pass-

and ask them what kind of hand they would need to pull and what hand for pass.

I don't like that. Different situations are different. In your bidding the opponent has made a NF bid at the 2-level, in the actual hand he has not. For instance.

[jdeegan]

It would be nice to know the vulnerability, the form of scoring, something about the match and the opponents if for no other reason to better judge why LHO has been so aggressive. Of course, pard's putative pass on the last round would have been forcing because we have just voluntarily bid game. Anyone who doesn't know this needs to study up on the game a bit more.

Pass seems best in most of the hypothetical situations, but I might bid on in others, likely 5♦. Pard only needs something like:
♠AKxx
♥Qxxx
♦Kxx
♣A10
for 5♦ or 5♠ to have a better than even shot - only 4-0♠ are likely to defeat it. Say we are vul vs not versus good aggressive bidders and probably slightly behind on board six of a seven board Swiss match. I might bid on. And, even if our 5 bid can't make, there is no law that says the opponents won't err by bidding on.

[Fluffy]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-03, 12:08, said:

I don't like that. Different situations are different. In your bidding the opponent has made a NF bid at the 2-level, in the actual hand he has not. For instance.

Well 100% biased players who said they would bid isn't better than what I propose IMO.

[han]

In your average club game there is no good solution. I think it is better to follow the proper routine and get to a bad answer because the people that were polled are unable to be unbiased, than to follow a improper routine.

[nige1]

wyman, on 2010-December-02, 12:08, said:

r/r MP
Please don't abstain because you would have made an alternate call earlier in the auction.

---

IMO
When partner doubles in tempo, 5♦ = 10, _P = 9, 5♠ = 8,
Partner's hesitation expresses doubt, making the removal of his double to 5♦ or 5♠ more attractive; so you should pass.

The law-book should lay down a complete protocol for coping with such matters. Roughly....

• A sample of the players' peers should be given the putative offender's hand but should not be shown the other hands or told the board-result. A peer should be defined as a player of roughly the same standard as all the competitors -- not a match for the individual. The poll group should include only players, who accept as reasonable, the player's previous actions on the board.
• The director should ask them what action (call/play) they would take, in context, and what other actions they would consider.
• The director should collate a list of logical alternatives, defined as an action, given practical consideration by a specified percentage (say 30%) of peers.
• If it is not already on the list, the director should add the action that the player actually took.
• The peers should assess the relative merits of the logical alternatives (rank the complete list in order of merit or award marks out of 10).
• Now, the director should tell the peers the nature of the unauthorised information (UI). The director should ask the peers which actions are suggested by the UI i.e re-order the logical alternatives, assuming the UI was authorised. N.B. The peers must still be kept ignorant of the other hands and actual results.
• Those actions that improve in rank are "suggested alternatives". If the putative offender chose a suggested action, he would be penalized (procedural penalty).
• In addition, if there were consequent damage, a favourable result would be restored. (determined by some other practical procedure -- IMO, the director should be allowed to consider actual results at other tables as an aid to such a determination).
• The director won't always have an actual group of peers but he can still perform the above thought experiment to arrive at a judgement.

Something like that should be written into the law book itself. Then players and directors, everywhere, would know what the law means. The current laws are impractical and imprecise.

[OleBerg]

jdeegan, on 2010-December-05, 02:47, said:

It would be nice to know the vulnerability, the form of scoring,

LOL

Quote

something about the match and the opponents if for no other reason to better judge why LHO has been so aggressive. Of course, pard's putative pass on the last round would have been forcing because we have just voluntarily bid game.

LOL

Quote

Anyone who doesn't know this needs to study up on the game a bit more.

ROFL

Quote

Pass seems best in most of the hypothetical situations, but I might bid on in others, likely 5♦.

LOL

Quote

Pard only needs something like:
♠AKxx
♥Qxxx
♦Kxx
♣A10
for 5♦ or 5♠ to have a better than even shot - only 4-0♠ are likely to defeat it.

Correct

Quote

Say we are vul vs not versus good aggressive bidders and probably slightly behind on board six of a seven board Swiss match. I might bid on.

Dubious, but accepted.

Quote

And, even if our 5 bid can't make, there is no law that says the opponents won't err by bidding on.

LOL

1½ out of seven. That's an E minus. Only sligth improvement needed for a passing grade. (ECTS-scale)

[Free]

nige1, on 2010-December-05, 09:16, said:

IMO When partner doubles in tempo, 5♦ = 10, _P = 9, 5♠ = 8,

One must admire the honesty and courage for posting something like this in a unanimous minus one poll.

[wyman]

jdeegan, on 2010-December-05, 02:47, said:

It would be nice to know the vulnerability, the form of scoring

Yes, if only there were someplace one could find this information...

edit: or even 2 places (!!) in the case of vulnerability

[MrAce]

Free, on 2010-December-06, 09:43, said:

One must admire the honesty and courage for posting something like this in a unanimous minus one poll.

[nige1]

Free, on 2010-December-06, 09:43, said:

One must admire the honesty and courage for posting something like this in a unanimous minus one poll.

MrAce, on 2010-December-06, 12:51, said:

wyman, on 2010-December-02, 20:53, said:

Thanks. This was an appeal from a club game last night. South's double was very slow. North bid 5D, and south bid 5S. +650. East had --/QJT9x/xx/QJT9xx. South held (wtf) KQJxx / Kxxx / Kxx / A, so 5Cx goes for only 500. _Everyone_ polled thought bidding was automatic (of course, everyone polled had played the hand). The phrase "pass is not even an option" was uttered several times. +650.

Those at wyman's club all chose 5♠. Almost everybody on BBO chose Pass. IMO, the hesitation suggests the former over the latter. That is what is should be important in law. At the club, however, nobody seems to have judged pass to be a logical alternative.

[OleBerg]

Free, on 2010-December-06, 09:43, said:

One must admire the honesty and courage for posting something like this in a unanimous minus one poll.

And appriciate it!

If no-one ever said anything the majority believed to be wrong, we'd still be in the dark ages.