[Trinidad]

The middle one.

Rik

[bluejak]

Sorry, the last one. It is a breach of Law 73C.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-August-31, 06:42, said:

This is a quite likely scenario. Let us say that there is UI, but raising to six is the only LA. He would have passed without the UI, because he would not have thought about it. Can he now bid six if, having thought about it, he decides it is the only LA? Perhaps that is a breach of Law 73?

His deciding that bidding six is the only LA doesn't make it so. How many of his peers would pass without thinking about bidding on? I consider that selecting an alternative involves seriously considering it, though I suppose you might argue that this is not the case.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-01, 04:15, said:

His deciding that bidding six is the only LA doesn't make it so. How many of his peers would pass without thinking about bidding on? I consider that selecting an alternative involves seriously considering it, though I suppose you might argue that this is not the case.

I agree it is the opinion of peers that matters, as I think I mentioned earlier on in this thread. The problem with polling expert peers is they will think about it, and are likely to reason as follows: "I did not promise a key card, therefore my expert partner is sure to have two to drive to the five level." Given that we are told he is an expert, he should be thinking about every bid, and not routinely passing because that is what one does. And if there is no "unmistakable" hesitation, we cannot adjust regardless of how poor a bid we think 6♥ is. And if he is expert, and would have bid 6♥ without the BIT, then he is not breaching 73C either.

[mich-b]

lamford, on 2011-September-01, 06:03, said:

I agree it is the opinion of peers that matters, as I think I mentioned earlier on in this thread. The problem with polling expert peers is they will think about it, and are likely to reason as follows: "I did not promise a key card, therefore my expert partner is sure to have two to drive to the five level." Given that we are told he is an expert, he should be thinking about every bid, and not routinely passing because that is what one does. And if there is no "unmistakable" hesitation, we cannot adjust regardless of how poor a bid we think 6♥ is. And if he is expert, and would have bid 6♥ without the BIT, then he is not breaching 73C either.

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting a style in which any time a player uses Blackwood he guarantees 2 Aces? (Ok, unless partner has specifically showed one)
Can you find anywhere any reference to such a style?

And are you also suggesting that if you happen to hold 2 Aces when pd used Blackwood (and signed off after you showed them) you're supposed to raise if you generally like your hand?

(lets assume for simplicity a sequence like:
1♣ - 1♠
2♠ - 4NT
5♥ - 5♠)

[campboy]

Of course, unless there was unmistakable hesitation then there is no UI and we do nothing. However, unmistakable means unmistakable to those who were actually there, not unmistakable to a bunch of people on the internet. The TD called to the table seems to have determined that there was an unmistakable BIT by West, and there is no suggestion that this was disputed by E/W.

In a poll of experts I would imagine enough would pass to make it an LA. I don't know, of course, since I am not an expert. If they pass in a poll they would have passed at the table, even if the converse is not necessarily true, so we may rely on the result of a poll if it determines that pass is an LA.

[lamford]

mich-b, on 2011-September-01, 07:17, said:

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting a style in which any time a player uses Blackwood he guarantees 2 Aces? (Ok, unless partner has specifically showed one)
Can you find anywhere any reference to such a style?
(lets assume for simplicity a sequence like:
1♣ - 1♠
2♠ - 4NT
5♥ - 5♠)

Pretty much every beginner book contains the adage 'don't use the convention if there is a possibility you won't like the reply' (or similar). In the original hand, if West has only one key card, there is more than a possibility of this. He is expert - we are told. Given that we have both minor-suit kings, it is inconceivable that he does not have two key cards.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-01, 07:19, said:

In a poll of experts I would imagine enough would pass to make it an LA.

Then we have to poll experts; I shall try to do so.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-September-01, 07:44, said:

Then we have to poll experts; I shall try to do so.

I begin to wonder what you are doing in this post.

If the issue is lack of information (good point I thought)
then Campboys' proddings are irrelevant, and there is no point polling anyone.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-01, 16:29, said:

I begin to wonder what you are doing in this post.

If the issue is lack of information (good point I thought)
then Campboys' proddings are irrelevant, and there is no point polling anyone.

I agree that we cannot make a ruling without asking further questions. However, we can attempt to rule on the assumption that there is UI - let us say that the response to the question was clearly overheard. The first assumption that everyone on here makes is that 5H is a signoff. We are not told that in the OP. I put this on rec.games.bridge, and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of passing 5H, but the two who argued otherwise were correct, and the others were all wrong. In my opinion. Take this erudite post, from a strong player:

"Thinking at Bridge is never a serious error, behaving like a robot is. I agree, however, that standard Blackwood is non consultative and it is extremely rare that you can have convincing reasons with the lower number of keycards to overrule partner.

However, there are good arguments why Exclusion keycard Blackwood (ERKB) should be treated differently: Partner has not just asked for key-cards: At the same time he has passed very useful information to you that he got a side suit void, which only allows you to judge how well the hands fit. It is plain wrong to claim partner is not consulted on this, when he is the only one, who can judge duplication of values. When playing Exclusion Keycard Blackwood there is almost no other convenient way of passing void information to partner. Repeated control bids of the same suit may guarantee first round control but not a void.

When your expert partner uses ERKB above game he has already committed the hand to the 5 level, not knowing how much duplication exists in the void suit. Partner must choose between a very limited number of options available to him trying for slam. With a void the best option by far is usually Exclusion Keycard Blackwood, even if one reply leaves in doubt whether slam is a good bet. In the current case it is almost impossible to construct hands for partner, where he might miss all your values outside the void suit in addition to 2 key cards."

Another post, just about the only other supporter of bidding 6H, went further:

"...it doesn't really seem sensible to pass 5H. What exactly are you putting partner on -- KQxxxx QJxx Qxx? I might even go so far to say that passing 5H after hearing a correct explanation from partner is illegal use of UI."

Why do I not post the other opinions on here? Because the majority of them were, again in my opinion, "pure nonsense". It does appeal to my sense of humour, however, that one might get a PP from campboy for bidding 6H, and a PP from the above poster for passing! If you hear an incorrect explanation from partner, your duty is to pretend that you heard a correct one, and then to bid accordingly. There is absolutely no indication that 5H is a "sign off", and ERKCB followed by an in tempo 5H over any response still consults partner.

Now gnasher will argue that partner has not promised a spade void. I do not think that is mainstream however; the ERKCB bidder expects his partner to believe that he as a void.

And I have to make this my last post on this thread, and will not reply further, sorry. Else I might be accused of hogging the crease like Alastair Cook, and attempting to break my own record for the percentage of posts from one person.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-September-02, 06:11, said:

I put this on rec.games.bridge, and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of passing 5H

OK, so pass is a logical alternative. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-September-02, 06:11, said:

Why do I not post the other opinions on here? Because the majority of them were, again in my opinion, "pure nonsense".

That doesn't seem to have stopped you posting your own opinions on that matter.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2011-September-01, 07:19, said:

In a poll of experts I would imagine enough would pass to make it an LA. I don't know, of course, since I am not an expert.

I've always wondered what standard a player has to be before he becomes an "expert". Roughly how many experts are there in a country such as Isreal or the UK?

lamford, on 2011-September-01, 07:44, said:

Then we have to poll experts; I shall try to do so.

lamford, on 2011-September-02, 06:11, said:

I put this on rec.games.bridge, and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of passing 5H, but the two who argued otherwise were correct, and the others were all wrong.

OK, so Paul's idea of an "expert" is someone who replies to his poll on RGB. Campboy: if you want to become an "expert", you now know what to do.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-September-02, 09:37, said:

I've always wondered what standard a player has to be before he becomes an "expert". Roughly how many experts are there in a country such as Isreal or the UK?

Not many, if your definition of an expert is close to the NSOED's: "A person with the status of an authority (in a subject) by reason of special skill, training, or knowledge; a specialist." In the UK I would say that only a handful of people fall into this category.

In this forum, of course "expert" means merely "a good player", a status which is harder to define but much easier to attain.

[cretinous]

campboy, on 2011-August-28, 10:53, said:

I would think the double is purely lead-directing.

Really? Under law 41A the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead. I see why you do not think you are expert.

[cretinous]

jallerton, on 2011-September-02, 09:25, said:

That doesn't seem to have stopped you posting your own opinions on that matter.

Pots and kettles. As someone, sorry as an expert, who thought the spade layout could possibly be: West: AKQx East: Jxx South: 10xxxx North: x, I would be careful when accusing others of posting nonsense.

[cretinous]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 08:56, said:

OK, so pass is a logical alternative. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Not if you read the contributions on the rec.games.bridge thread. Those who pass 5H might be peers, but only with the meaning of the agent noun. Truth is not determined by majority vote. ~Doug Gwyn