[Mbodell]

mrdct, on 2011-December-13, 20:17, said:

You polled the wrong people.

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

I still think this is wrong. The TD can place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of slam exploring person that would rather bid 3♣ and explore slam only if partner bids 4♠, what bids would I consider when partner bids 3♠". There are lots of places where people make what looks like a game try with game forcing, slam trying hands. And then bid on when partner doesn't accept the game (hidden slam) try.

FWIW I may be a peer of this person if you asked me as playing this system I'd consider bids of 4♠, 4♦, and 3♣[always bidding to 4♠] and I'm not sure which of the 3 I'd pick.

[campboy]

Mbodell, on 2011-December-14, 01:05, said:

I still think this is wrong. The TD can place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of slam exploring person that would rather bid 3♣ and explore slam only if partner bids 4♠, what bids would I consider when partner bids 3♠".

Why are you assuming he was "slam exploring"? You might as well just assume he was never going to pass. We have only his word for either.

[blackshoe]

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

[phil_20686]

mrdct, on 2011-December-13, 20:17, said:

You polled the wrong people.

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

This is mistaken IMO. That is sensible when the person has already made some kind of value judgement. However, here the players argument was that he had a GF hand. That is the statement that needs to be polled. If everyone agrees that he has a GF in spades then pass is not a LA. No matter what his bid "showed". Suppose he had started off with a psychic 2c to inhibit the lead, and then had a slow 2S - would you be ruled back because your pysche had no peers? That way lies madness. You are polling peers to find out if his explanation was self serving or reasonable. In this case his his explanation was that he has a GF in spades. He just wanted partner to know roughly his HCP strength either because he was worred about defending 5D or whatever reason, but if everyone agrees that this is a GF hand in spades, pass cannot be a LA.

[richlp]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-14, 09:11, said:

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

This is "Teams, high level of play."

I don't know why 3♣ was chosen. And we've never heard the player's explanation. But it just doesn't seem right to ascribe Walrus-like adherence to HCP to a player on a team with a "high level of play." Peers are players of similar ability (even if they would not have made the chosen call). In a "high level" event virtually all the players should be considered as peers in terms of playing ability. The fact that EVERYBODY considered this hand a game bid/force is pretty convincing that THIS player considered it a game-drive, regardless of how he chose to bid it, and that pass of 3♠ is not a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

All right, I suppose that's fair enough. In that case, both the TD at the table and the AC were wrong. Which seems a bit unusual. I wonder what we don't know that they did.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-14, 09:11, said:

Did he, in doing what he "was always going to do", carefully avoid taking advantage of UI? If so, or if Law 73C doesn't (in your opinion) apply, why is this case different from others where the putative offender does what he "was always going to do"?

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

[aguahombre]

Maybe they assumed that this person was playing up, and using the HCP based bidding as evidence of that; leading to a conclusion that this person might not have made the same initial valuation as the rest of the field.

[ggwhiz]

You put yourself in this pickle. Nobody will believe you made a non-gf raise then changed your mind after the hitch.

Endplayed by pard into a pass but set up for it by yourself.

[bluejak]

Of course in a perfect world you would only poll people who are perfect copies of the person concerned with his views and ideas.

Life is not like that, and polling is only an aid to judgement, not a substitute for it. If you can find no-one who thinks 3♣ is the right bid that does not mean that polling other people is wrong: it just means that you take notice of that in your judgement and in your assessment of what the pollees' replies mean and how they help.

[dburn]

Don't mind 3♣ - quite an intelligent bid, really. Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum. If the partnership in the actual case can supply evidence to this effect, then I don't have a problem with the notion that there is no LA to bidding game (and this was "a high level of play", so such evidence may well be forthcoming).

It seems to me that many comments are along the lines of "the player who bid 3♣ was or could have been a bean-counter who re-evaluated on the basis of the UI that partner nearly bid game". Well, it may be so, but the original poster's question was along these lines: "the player bid 3♣ fully intending to carry a minimum response to game, and to try for slam over certain maximum responses; may he now bid game over a slow 3♠?" Of course he may, and he should not expect to be ruled against if he does.

To put this into sharper perspective: I once had an auction behind screens where my partnership had agreed hearts, and the opponents had competed in spades to the point where our side could not conduct the scientific auction we would have liked. I cue-bid five of some minor, and before I shoved the tray under wrote a note to my screen-mate saying that I was going to bid six however slowly my partner bid five. My screen-mate (a world champion) added the words "quite right" underneath. I learned later with astonishment bordering on incredulity that some people would have objected to this procedure (as it happened, my partner bid six anyway, so there was no issue).

[Trinidad]

In essence, responder has a Bergen 4♦ bid: A mixed raise to the 4 level (typically with 5 card support, but I guess 4 + void also qualifies). The Bergen 4♦ bid is "the taller brother" of the Bergen 3♣ bid. It has the same values, but more distribution, and therefore wants to play in game. Unfortunately, responder didn't have the Bergen 4♦ bid in his tool box. He decided to use the smaller brother (3♣) and then bid 4♠ anyway to describe his hand.

I am not saying that I would have chosen that route, but it is certainly reasonable. After all, the alternatives also have some drawbacks. The alternatives are:

- He could splinter
- He could bid a Jacoby 2NT
- He could bid 2♥ and bid spades
- He could bid 3♦ and convert to 4♠
- He could bid 3♣ and convert to 4♠

All of these methods have specific characteristics. One characteristic of the first three is that they show some slam interest, which responder doesn't really have. Another is that they set up a forcing pass if the opponents would enter the auction. I don't think you want that. (If East would have bid 2NT then NS might be upset by West's explanation of "GF spade raise". NS would imagine a hand with considerable more high card strength. See the discussions about explanations of "GF" 2♣ openers.)

The poll is clear about two things:
- No one would stop bidding below 4♠.
- Two of the polled players actually followed the same idea, but took it even further: They bid 3♦ and converted to 4♠. In other words, they were always going to go to game even if they knew for sure that declarer had a balanced minimum. (A 3♠ rebid by opener after a 3♣ response has a higher upper limit than a ♠ rebid by opener after a 3♦ response.) Those who think that East shouldn't be allowed to convert to 4♠ would certainly need to think that the 3♦ bidders wouldn't be allowed to do that. When passing 3♠ was not an LA for the 3♦ bidders, it certainly cannot be an LA for a 3♣ bidder.

Therefore, the 4♠ bid should be allowed.

Rik

[olegru]

mrdct, on 2011-December-13, 20:17, said:

You polled the wrong people.

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

I believe it is not correct.
Every method has holes. Everyone sometimes masterminds his bids in awkward for his system positions, because he thinks in that particular situation non-systemic bid gives him the better chance to extract useful information from the partner and made the final decision compare to the systemic bid.
Player told it was that kind of situation for him.

Director does not need to find the group of people who will made the same unsystemic decision, it is hardly possible.

He needs to find peers and ask the correct questions.
“By some reason you decided to bid like that. Your partner bid 3 spades in a perfect tempo. What is you bid? What other bids you were thinking about?”

By the way, pass is not LA for me.

[aguahombre]

olegru, on 2011-December-21, 16:56, said:

Every method has holes. Everyone sometimes masterminds his bids in awkward for his system positions, because he thinks in that particular situation non-systemic bid gives him the better chance to extract useful information from the partner and made the final decision compare to the systemic bid.
Player told it was that kind of situation for him.

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

[olegru]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 17:11, said:

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

Absolutl agree. if there is LA suggested by partners hesitation - rule it. But if there is no LA - no punishment. what I want to say is - director should no assign the bad decission as aLA only. Because he does not like "clever" bid.

[blackshoe]

Why is it that when a player commits an infraction which damages the opponents, he considers rectification of that damage as "punishment"? Seems to me "punishment" would require something more than just redressing the damage. But I suppose if you consider the redress "punishment" you can argue against ever getting a procedural penalty, calling that "cruel and unusual".

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-21, 17:11, said:

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

Bridge is a brain game. One is supposed to be clever. This includes finding a bid on hands for which there is no systemic bid.

If there was a B.I.T. by partner, we do politely accept being ruled against and we politely ask for an appeal form. A TD is not supposed to rule against us because there was a BIT. There are a few other conditions that need to be met before he can rule against us. In this case, the condition that pass (or any other call) is an LA has not been met. Therefore, there should not be an AS.

Fortunately, the TD who handled the case made the correct ruling straight away by not adjusting the score. I may have missed something, but it seems that the players politely accepted this ruling.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-21, 20:57, said:

Why is it that when a player commits an infraction which damages the opponents, he considers rectification of that damage as "punishment"? Seems to me "punishment" would require something more than just redressing the damage. But I suppose if you consider the redress "punishment" you can argue against ever getting a procedural penalty, calling that "cruel and unusual".

I understand that you want to battle against the use of the word "punishment" when "rectification" is supposed to be used. And, of course, you are correct. It is important to state every now and then that there is a big difference between rectification and punishment. Olegru chose the wrong word, maybe the fact that he isn't a native speaker might have had something to do with that.

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-22, 02:36, said:

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

Good job at diversion. We both know and skipped over the obvious; that it is the use of the B.I.T which is an infraction. In the future I will try to use more words, so that you can follow cause to effect.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-22, 04:04, said:

Good job at diversion. We both know and skipped over the obvious; that it is the use of the B.I.T which is an infraction. In the future I will try to use more words, so that you can follow cause to effect.

Thank you for the compliment.

You may think that you skipped over the obvious, but what you think obviously existed, simply didn't exist. By that I mean: there obviously wasn't any use of UI. If you would have looked at the results of the poll* and the contributions of e.g. Frances and David Burn, it would have become clear that there was no use of a BIT and hence there was no infraction.

Rik

*The poll of 8 people shows that all of them would drive to 4♠. This included 2 that took the even extremer approach than this player by bidding 4♠ through 3♦ (thereby knowing for sure that their opener has a bare minimum). Then that shows pretty clearly that pass is not an LA.