BBO Discussion Forums: No LA? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

No LA? UI from question

Poll: No LA? (31 member(s) have cast votes)

As West what do you lead to South's 3N

  1. Club (2 votes [6.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.45%

  2. Diamond (18 votes [58.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 58.06%

  3. Heart (11 votes [35.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.48%

  4. Spade (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Other (Hippogriff?) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2015-May-24, 19:26


SBU. Match-pointed pairs. National final.
NS play Acol, weak notrump and 4 card majors.
As West what do you lead to South's 3N?

Spoiler

0

#2 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-May-24, 21:21

PP to East, who could have asked without a problem routinely when 3D was bid and alerted; but, he waited to ask before his final pass (although legal, unnecessary for any reason at that point other than to show Diamond interest.

The TD has made his ruling about no LA to Diamond Jack lead; although I disagree from way over here, he is there and the result should stand --- real matchpoint PP to E/W is fully justified.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#3 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,082
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2015-May-25, 01:04

View Postaguahombre, on 2015-May-24, 21:21, said:

PP to East, who could have asked without a problem routinely when 3D was bid and alerted; but, he waited to ask before his final pass (although legal, unnecessary for any reason at that point other than to show Diamond interest.

Much as I'd love to give a PP to East, I'm unclear what law has been broken.

I could not see a logical alternative to the diamond lead with no entries to the hand.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#4 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-25, 02:19

I agree with Paulg. There is no alternative to a diamond lead, no law has been broken.

But I think the TD could advice East that the timing of his question was pretty clumsy. He could also advice West that "doing (with the UI) what you were always going to do (without the UI)" is not what the laws require of you: When there are LAs, you need to do the opposite of what the UI suggests.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#5 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,082
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2015-May-25, 02:53

View Postnige1, on 2015-May-24, 19:26, said:

There was no poll.

Although this was a national final it is slightly misleading because readers may assume that it consists of experienced and regular tournament players. I only recognise nine regular players of twenty-eight, so limited ability to both run an appeals committee and a poll (especially as your pair cannot participate and the opponents cannot participate, and some of the others should never be asked for an opinion if you want a sensible answer!).
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
1

#6 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-May-25, 03:08

No adjustment, although I agree partner's failure to double 3D might give an LA on a different hand. On this hand the alternative leads are horrible. PP to South for breach of 74B1 in the play. :)
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#7 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-May-25, 03:10

View Postpaulg, on 2015-May-25, 01:04, said:

Much as I'd love to give a PP to East, I'm unclear what law has been broken.


Law 73
B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners
1. Partners shall not communicate by..... questions asked or not asked of the opponents


This seems to establish that East's question at that particular time and manner was an inappropriate communication -- thus breaking a law.

Law 90
A. Director’s Authority
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that violates correct procedure...


So, in addition to the rectification (none because there was no LA), a PP may be assessed. In accordance with L23, the TD determines that East could have been aware when breaking L90B1 that his violation might well damage the opponents. East could not know whether his partner had a logical alternative to a Diamond lead.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-May-25, 03:44

You are ruling on the basis that East's intent was to suggest to his partner lead a diamond. East will deny this of course. Does the preponderance of evidence suggest that the denial is BS?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-May-25, 03:47

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-May-25, 03:44, said:

You are ruling on the basis that East's intent was to suggest to his partner lead a diamond. East will deny this of course. Does the preponderance of evidence suggest that the denial is BS?

Yes. He didn't ask when alerted (an acceptable procedure which should carry no UI). He asked prior to ending the auction, and he himself was not going to be on opening lead.

However, if we go through L23 (the path I suggested), intent doesn't need to be established...it is a Probst thing.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#10 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,082
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2015-May-25, 04:18

As I dislike aguahombre's solution, I decided to look at some SBU regulations. In the Alerting Policy it states

"When opponents make an alerted or non-alertable conventional call you are entitled to ask specifically about that call at your first turn to call thereafter. Otherwise any questions should be directed at the whole auction, not a specific call."

The emphasis on 'first' is in the regulations.

If East specifically asked about the three diamonds call prior to the final pass, then it would be a breach of regulation and a PP could be, and in this case imo should have been, assessed.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#11 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-May-25, 05:42

View Postpaulg, on 2015-May-25, 04:18, said:

As I dislike aguahombre's solution, I decided to look at some SBU regulations. In the Alerting Policy it states

"When opponents make an alerted or non-alertable conventional call you are entitled to ask specifically about that call at your first turn to call thereafter. Otherwise any questions should be directed at the whole auction, not a specific call."

The emphasis on 'first' is in the regulations.

If East specifically asked about the three diamonds call prior to the final pass, then it would be a breach of regulation and a PP could be, and in this case imo should have been, assessed.


Interesting. so, you arrived at the solution you dislike via the jurisdiction's regulations which say virtually the same thing and were probably derived by the same path.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#12 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,082
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2015-May-25, 07:50

View Postaguahombre, on 2015-May-25, 05:42, said:

Interesting. so, you arrived at the solution you dislike via the jurisdiction's regulations which say virtually the same thing and were probably derived by the same path.

Perhaps here is a specific regulation because they wanted to penalise this behaviour but did not like the path you took? :)

I'm not saying your path is wrong, it just feels to me that using L73B1 and L23 is a stretch.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#13 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-May-25, 07:58

Scotland Bridge administration has been kind enough to eliminate the need for its TD's to re-invent the wheel. The EBU tries to do it with its colored books. The WBF and the ACBL are content with their minutes. All things equal, I would rather be in Scotland.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#14 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2015-May-25, 18:29

View Postnige1, on 2015-May-24, 19:26, said:

There was no poll.

View Postpaulg, on 2015-May-25, 02:53, said:

Although this was a national final it is slightly misleading because readers may assume that it consists of experienced and regular tournament players. I only recognise nine regular players of twenty-eight, so limited ability to both run an appeals committee and a poll (especially as your pair cannot participate and the opponents cannot participate, and some of the others should never be asked for an opinion if you want a sensible answer!).
The director/appeals committee can contact players by 'phone if, in such circumstances, they need a poll.

After the appeal, 6 good players were told the West hand and the auction without the UI.

None chose to lead J. For most J was their 3rd choice. (Declarer's likely shape is 5134. Partner, marked with values, hadn't doubled 3. Hence, they feared that lead might give away a critical trick, at matchpoints).

Before the appeal, I felt it wrong to consult, because that might "taint" potential pollees.
0

#15 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,695
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-July-11, 04:15

I also think a is a LA and for precisely the same reason as others have said it is not. We have no entry so this might be the only chance to lead through an honour holding in Dummy. It is not impossible for Declarer to be 5044 and Dummy 1435 for example. I also think that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable at a national event, esepcially when giving the same player credit for being of a high level.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#16 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2015-July-12, 10:35

View PostZelandakh, on 2015-July-11, 04:15, said:

I also think a is a LA and for precisely the same reason as others have said it is not. We have no entry so this might be the only chance to lead through an honour holding in Dummy. It is not impossible for Declarer to be 5044 and Dummy 1435 for example. I also think that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable at a national event, esepcially when giving the same player credit for being of a high level.


I considered a high heart, however North has 5 of them (at least he does in 'pristine acol')

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#17 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,444
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-July-12, 11:20

View Postweejonnie, on 2015-July-12, 10:35, said:

I considered a high heart, however North has 5 of them (at least he does in 'pristine acol')

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.

Only to the extent that he must not take any advantage of the UI. If he and the TD consider that a diamond is the only LA, then he is not taking any advantage.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#18 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2015-July-12, 12:32

View Postlamford, on 2015-July-12, 11:20, said:

Only to the extent that he must not take any advantage of the UI. If he and the TD consider that a diamond is the only LA, then he is not taking any advantage.


Well at the moment there is a LA. However I agree - if there is no LA then there is no problem.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#19 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-July-13, 10:33

View Postweejonnie, on 2015-July-12, 10:35, said:

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.

That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.

#20 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-July-13, 11:20

View Postbarmar, on 2015-July-13, 10:33, said:

That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.

In other words, your second paragraph is a good argument in support of the recommendations referenced in the first paragraph... since the player can't be objective about L.A.'s, he should just do what he would do without UI and let the chips fall.

IMO, real experts (my opinion of what a real expert is --don't go there) are in the best position to determine whether the action they wish to make has a L.A. within his partnership's experience and agreements, and even to determine what partner's irregularity could have suggested. I believe he should consider those things, articulate them afterward if necessary, and then let the chips fall after not necessarily making the call or play he "would always make".

This thread is about a play -- not a call. Thus, the above would always apply.

There are auctions where considering LA's after an irregularity is just plain silly and the player should just do what he would do if there were screens.

1) After a BIT, an asking bid or convention should still be treated as such.
2) A failure to alert should still be treated as if the alert had ocurred.
3) The converse of 2) above.
4) A sign-off is still a sign-off.
etc.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users