[StevenG]

Having read this thread, I am no wiser as to why people think pass is an LA for South. Surely the LAs are 2NT and 3NT - 3NT is suggested by the hesitation, so 2NT is the legal bid amd North will raise to 3NT. So result stands, but a word in South's ear.

I don't know why South bid 1NT on his first round, but there is no way to judge without asking him. (A probably stupid question from an Acol-only player - isn't 1NT forcing in some strains of "standard"?) When dealing with weak players, I don't think the logic "this bid means this to me" therefore "this bid means the same thing to him" holds. In particular, I don't see really weak players understanding the concept of forcing and non-forcing bids; they just make a seemingly descriptive bid and shrug their shoulders when it is passed out.

[gnasher]

StevenG, on 2015-January-01, 04:07, said:

Having read this thread, I am no wiser as to why people think pass is an LA for South. Surely the LAs are 2NT and 3NT

LAs are actions which are logical for the class of player involved. We have evidence from the auction that this South thought that the hand should be played in a partscore, If that's what he did think, and he knew what his hand was when he bid 1NT, we should probably conclude that pass is an LA and 3NT is not.

If, on the other hand, he bid 1NT thinking it was forcing, or thinking he had a weaker hand, or not thinking at all, we might conclude that pass is not an LA and 3NT is.

Since the LAs are a function of what South was thinking when he bid 1NT, obviously we should obtain evidence about what he was thinking. I'm surprised that anyone thinks they can determine the LAs without having done this.

[chrism]

StevenG, on 2015-January-01, 04:07, said:

(A probably stupid question from an Acol-only player - isn't 1NT forcing in some strains of "standard"?)

Not in competition in anything that I have heard described as "standard", though quite a few players seem to use that description for whatever they happen to play.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-31, 23:57, said:

LOL I suggested this in post#9 -- I guess I would be surprised if I knew how many people had me on their ignore list!

I'm not ignoring you (or anyone -- it would be inappropriate given my role as a forum admin). I just noticed the most recent one.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-December-31, 14:57, said:

My point is that you can't judge a players intent just by looking at their bids; there can be a number of reasons why they didn't consider their hand worth a game-force on the first round, like Trinidad's example of a missing card (although it would be better if the card were simply hidden behind another card in their hand -- if it's still in the board, it means they forgot to count their cards). It doesn't have to be that they changed their judgement, which could have been influenced by the hesitation.

I used the example of a card stuck in the board on purpose. Some very significant events may have been going on at the table that you, as a TD, do not know and that the players will not tell you (e.g. because they don't want to make the situation more complicated than it is, or don't want to get a PP for not counting their cards)... Unless, of course, you ask fairly specifically.

Rik

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-31, 21:39, said:

O.K. Let's take the contention that South had a King hidden. It is not an infraction for North to break tempo (in and of itself); so let's even say South discovered his extra King during the huddle --- all just dandy.

IMO, a good non-invite plus a King = an invite.

That may be true by itself, but your argument doesn't hold when you add the condition that you have just told your partner that you cannot hold an invite anymore. If South replaced his 3NT bid by 2NT, this would -in principle- be merely to play with a 9-10 count, instead of the 6-8 he could have held and with which he would pass. (I write "in principle" since in this case North, with his borderline non-invitation, will raise to 3NT anyway.)

South cannot show his 12 HCP hand with an invitational bid anymore, so he will need to bite the bullet and simply bid game. That is at least what any half decent player -who through a brain fart had lost an ace earlier in the auction- would do. (But note that "any half decent player" does not apply here.)

Rik

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-December-29, 04:37, said:

I wouldn't allow the 3NT bid, and in a club context I'd welcome it as a good opportunity to explain how these things work.

Would you allow South to substitute a penalty double instead of 3NT? And I agree with gnasher that South must first be asked what he thought his hand was when he bid 1NT, as even beginners would not choose that call.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-January-03, 08:13, said:

Would you allow South to substitute a penalty double instead of 3NT? And I agree with gnasher that South must first be asked what he thought his hand was when he bid 1NT, as even beginners would not choose that call.

Yes, I would allow a penalty double. Of course I agree with finding out what the player thought was going on, but I don't think the likelihood is great that there is no LA to bidding 3NT. Even if he thought he was bidding a forcing NT, that, for almost all players, means he had already judged it not to be strong enough to force to game.

[axman]

gnasher, on 2015-January-01, 04:28, said:

Since the LAs are a function of what South was thinking when he bid 1NT, obviously we should obtain evidence about what he was thinking. I'm surprised that anyone thinks they can determine the LAs without having done this.

I think that this is a dubious assertion. L1612b has the specification for LA: “..among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership,..”

which to me specifies that it does not rely upon what THE player 'thought' but what OTHER players would consider based upon the Method.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-January-03, 09:17, said:

Yes, I would allow a penalty double. Of course I agree with finding out what the player thought was going on, but I don't think the likelihood is great that there is no LA to bidding 3NT. Even if he thought he was bidding a forcing NT, that, for almost all players, means he had already judged it not to be strong enough to force to game.

Then I do not see how you can adjust the score, as the alternative 2Hx-4 is worse for EW than 3NT, reached either via 2NT raised to 3, or 3NT immediately.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-January-03, 12:00, said:

Then I do not see how you can adjust the score, as the alternative 2Hx-4 is worse for EW than 3NT, reached either via 2NT raised to 3, or 3NT immediately.

We haven't established that they had a penalty double available.

[gnasher]

axman, on 2015-January-03, 10:42, said:

I think that this is a dubious assertion. L1612b has the specification for LA: "..among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership,.."

which to me specifies that it does not rely upon what THE player 'thought' but what OTHER players would consider based upon the Method.

The objective of asking why he bid 1NT is to establish whether he belongs to the class of players who think that this hand is worth a non-forcing non-invitational 1NT bid, or the class of players who think that 1NT is forcing and unlimited, or the class of players who think that 1NT shows 6-9 HCP (with South having miscounted his points).

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-03, 00:34, said:

That may be true by itself, but your argument doesn't hold when you add the condition that you have just told your partner that you cannot hold an invite anymore. If South replaced his 3NT bid by 2NT, this would -in principle- be merely to play with a 9-10 count, instead of the 6-8 he could have held and with which he would pass. (I write "in principle" since in this case North, with his borderline non-invitation, will raise to 3NT anyway.)

South cannot show his 12 HCP hand with an invitational bid anymore, so he will need to bite the bullet and simply bid game. That is at least what any half decent player -who through a brain fart had lost an ace earlier in the auction- would do. (But note that "any half decent player" does not apply here.)

Rik

Interesting. I would think the hypothetical half "decent" player would consider himself restricted from bidding 2NT on the second round after partner tanked on his 1NT response, if he truly held 9 or 10 pts... and restricted from bidding 3NT after finding a lost King since he "knows" partner would accept and bid 3NT after an invite.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-January-03, 12:33, said:

We haven't established that they had a penalty double available.

If South did not make a takeout double on the previous round, how could double be anything other than penalties now?

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-January-03, 16:17, said:

Interesting. I would think the hypothetical half "decent" player would consider himself restricted from bidding 2NT on the second round after partner tanked on his 1NT response, if he truly held 9 or 10 pts... and restricted from bidding 3NT after finding a lost King since he "knows" partner would accept and bid 3NT after an invite.

Why would he be restricted? If South indeed suddenly finds a king, then 2NT or pass are simply not LAs, because they don't show game values and they aren't even invitational.The only way to bid the game going values (or if you evaluate it as a very good invitation: the only way to come close to showing a very good invitation) is to bid game.

Rik

[nige1]

StevenG, on 2015-January-01, 04:07, said:

Having read this thread, I am no wiser as to why people think pass is an LA for South.

StevenG speaks for most players and many directors. Others do think pass might be an LA for this South but are happy to take South's word that he mis-sorted his hand, or thought his 1N was forcing, or whatever. Most of the rest prefer a weighted ruling. Thus, If North's hesitation does wake South up and he decides to bid 3N, he is usually better off than if he made a masochistic legal pass. Weighted rulings usually ensure a profit even when South fesses up and is unfortunate enough to encounter a director who would rule against him.

The other side are correspondingly worse off but they might learn something from their opponents' good fortune. They might gradually appreciate the message inherent in the way such laws are commonly interpreted: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-January-03, 17:00, said:

If South did not make a takeout double on the previous round, how could double be anything other than penalties now?

Are we looking at the same hand?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-January-04, 03:27, said:

Are we looking at the same hand?

No, I don't think so. I am looking at South, which is to the South-East of West and the South-West of East. And, having bid 1NT on the previous round, double on the second round can only be penalties. A leopard cannot change his spots.

[akwoo]

I am fairly confident, assuming no cards were hidden, that North-South have no agreement on what 1N means, and, despite playing "standard american", South thinks that 1N is 8-30, non-forcing, and, at the moment he or she bid 1N, was not aware that the bid of 2N even existed.

With players of this caliber, it is useless to try to infer anything about what they thought based on what they bid. The implication that South thought his or her hand was not worth an invite based on the 1N bid is grossly wrong.