[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-June-03, 17:42, said:

...I don't think anybody disagrees with the test - a poll of equivalent players without the UI. The difficulty, especially with these off-beat...

I've seen it said the Laws don't require a poll, even on this Forum? (not certain about that). Ask Bluejak his opinion.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-05, 14:21, said:

I've seen it said the Laws don't require a poll, even on this Forum? (not certain about that). Ask Bluejak his opinion.

Indeed the Laws do not provide for how it is decided what is an LA for peers of the player. And it is rare for a poll to be held by an AC. I think the TD usually polls three of four fellow TDs or strong players. Often potential pollees have disappeared to the bar - and there is a downside in polling them there as we have seen.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-June-05, 17:42, said:

Indeed the Laws do not provide for how it is decided what is an LA for peers of the player. And it is rare for a poll to be held by an AC. I think the TD usually polls three of four fellow TDs or strong players. Often potential pollees have disappeared to the bar - and there is a downside in polling them there as we have seen.

Lamford consider - because you are often so precise about the Laws.

Two extremes:

1. The Bermuda Bowl final

Who does the TD consult?

2. The local club, successful, with 15+ tables.

Who does the TD consult?

I suspect that all the other arguments we have seen from you and others, only apply to the middle ranking to top(ish) ranking regional/national tournaments, with a mixed level of participants.
I've heard of the 'cheat's charter'. Is their a 'bully's charter' that may result from extremes of intellectualised judgements you would not have the nerve to apply to top level players.

[blackshoe]

At the local clubs, sometimes the TD consults me. Sometimes they consult some of the better players. Sometimes both, I suppose. In the BB final, I dunno.

[mycroft]

at the BB final, I assume that there are lots of non-final teams with players to consult. The BB RR, however, I guess we go for the pro side of the sit-out teams.

At the local club, whoever isn't there, or who has played the hand already. I have a telephone at my club, which is useful for getting opinions from people not at my game - sometimes not even in the same city.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-June-01, 20:43, said:

Never heard of it - but if it conveys the sort of hand that North holds it's still a non-alertable natural bid under the EBU definitions.

Do you have any documentation or references for this convention? I've googled "delay unusual", "delayed unusual", "delay gambling" and "delayed gambling" all with and without "NT" and "3NT" and I've not found anything.

Perhaps because he has invented the name. But it certainly is common enough in simpler cases, eg:

---

With a strange partner and no discussion I would assume he has longer clubs, shorter diamonds.

At a higher level:

---

With a strange partner and no discussion I would assume he has longer clubs, shorter diamonds.

3NT is more tricky since I tend to assume 3NT is to play, though some people would play the same approach for 3NT.

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-05, 14:21, said:

I've seen it said the Laws don't require a poll, even on this Forum? (not certain about that). Ask Bluejak his opinion.

There is no reference to polls in the Laws.

While good TD practice is to use a poll sometimes, even often, each case is taken on its merits, and TDs have many considerations as to whether a poll is practical or necessary, eg how certain they are of the result, what their consultant[s] say, whether there are problems in finding people to poll and so on.

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 21:11, said:

No, it is a term coined back some 50 years ago by people who knew a 3NT bid in this type auction cannot mean anything else.

It is more common on (say):

(1M) 2m (2M) P
(P) 2NT.....where the 2NT rebid by the balancing hand has 4 cards in the unbid minor (6-4 in the two suits). It cannot be natural because the overcaller cannot really have a 20 count with stoppers in the major.

Back then, we looked it up under "common sense" for reference.

BTW, I didn't invent it, nor did I have any common sense, back then. I just listened to those who did.

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 08:48, said:

Perhaps because he has invented the name. But it certainly is common enough in simpler cases, eg:

---

With a strange partner and no discussion I would assume he has longer clubs, shorter diamonds.

At a higher level:

---

With a strange partner and no discussion I would assume he has longer clubs, shorter diamonds.

3NT is more tricky since I tend to assume 3NT is to play, though some people would play the same approach for 3NT.

A neater presentation of my post, for sure. And, no, in addition to not inventing the concept, I did not invent the name.

The only point of difference is about 3NT. Surely it could be to play in some instances, but not when the 3NT bidder, as here, has already denied a hand which would have the strength for that, and his partner has not yet contributed to the auction.

So, 3NT must be in the same bag with your 2NT and 4NT examples in the given case.

[blackshoe]

All very logical, Agua, but nevertheless, there are players with the agreement that 3NT is always to play.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-08, 10:41, said:

All very logical, Agua, but nevertheless, there are players with the agreement that 3NT is always to play.

Indeed, we are told by mrdct that "North's 3NT bid falls entirely within the definition of "natural" in the EBU Orange Book Clause 5F1(b):".

So it must be to play.

[nige1]

IMO without discussion, this shows long clubs and a shorter suit of diamonds or hearts.
Similarly for the 4N example.
I dare say your interpretation may be related to what a double would show
Nevertheless, what is logical to one person may not necessarily appear so to another.

---

[aguahombre]

For the short time we used it as 4-6 with either 4 hearts or 4 diamonds, we had enough (one) bad results to switch back to just the lower suit being secondary.

But, I know others think the second suit can be either. It just didn't work out for us. If we do belong in the auction and in hearts, pard might have used a responsive double over the raise to 2S or we might survive by reopening with a double ourselves.