|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
In a word, No.  A TD or AC is allowed, even required, to judge situations, using the evidence he receives. While he never tells anyone that he is lying, he is allowed to make judgements that do not agree with something he has been told. The example you gave was a UI case: his partner has not alerted 3D. Thus I would just adjust to 3D*-8, saying that pass is a logical alternative, and let him appeal.
|
RichM  285 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
More drivel from me.
I think there was an old numeric principle; if some significant percent of your peers would have taken an alternate action then the director/committee can/should award the result for the alternate. Stated inversely, if the actual choice would be the choice of some large percent of your peers, then the actual choice should be allowed. Is "LA" an improvement ? IMO, there is almost always some logical alternative in bidding a bridge hand. In the Master Solvers Club forum, there are often problems where a large majority selects one action but there are always a few other votes. I think it is "logical" to Pass over 3 Hearts in the problem auction if one subscribes to the principle "undiscussed non-forcing in competition". Would a committee let EW keep +140 ? It is also logical to Pass 4 Hearts. I just think it is "more logical" to bid 4 Spades for the reasons I stated before. But responder's application of logic is constrained by UI when opener does not alert 3 Hearts. I think bidding on over 4 Spades in illogical. But again there is UI that suggests passing. What to do, what to do? The committee seems to have decided that it was logical for opener to bid on over 4 Spades, treating 4 Spades a cue bid for Hearts. But then it was logical to Pass 5 Hearts. Maybe committees should be replaced by computers that will simulate possible results, calculate the most probable result based on 10,000 sample hands, and make an award of say 7.234 matchpoints to the non-offending side. cybernetically, RichM |
|
AlanW Reply |
This sounds fine except that the 3D bidder will (and did) argue that of course his partner didn't alert 3D since it wasn't conventional. He expected and intended his partner to take it as natural and not alert it, so how can the lack of an alert provide information, whether authorised or unauthorised? Surely it's only if the bidder admits he thought partner might regard it as a conventional bid, or if the TD/AC decides this anyway, that the case becomes a potential UI case at all? |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Whenever partner alerts [or does not] that is UI to you. Every time!!!! So there was UI. So it is up to the TD and AC to determine whether there were LAs.
The figures you quote are merely interpretations of "LA", and are not the same in all jurisdictions. If an AC in [say] Australia believes an action will be taken 20% of the time that is usually not enough to consider it an LA, but it would be considered an LA in North America.
LA is a defined term. A call selected by too small a number of the players' peers does not constitute an LA.
|
|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
bluejak wrote
<< LA is a defined term. A call selected by too small a number of the players' peers does not constitute an LA. >> This was in response to a comment by me about "logical alternative" as a change from an earlier numeric criteria. David, Thank you for the clarification. I got the impression from some articles on appeals that "LA" was a looser standard which produces a semi-automatic result; there is almost always a logical alternative. Looks like I misinterpreted the concept. It makes sense that a committee should use their experience to determine whether the are or are not logical alternatives to an action taken. Although this horse has been beaten about to death, I am still interested in your opinion as to the best resolution of this type of problem. To recap: 1) there was UI transmitted by a failure to alert a 3H bid that the bidder intended to show 4H and 5+S, 2) there was a further problem when the 3H bidder displayed "mannerism" while bidding 4S 3) an appeals committee adjusted the result from 4S making to 5S down 1 [I think that's true] If the director had been called at the time of the 4S bid and the director had determined there was UI by failure to alert, then I assume the director would cancel the 4S bid and return the contract to 4H. The score would be whatever happened in the play of 4H. The director could additionally warn or penalize the 4S bidder based on a violation of propriety, the "mannerism". Does that make sense ? A second "what if". Suppose the player with 4H and 5S had called the director at the time of the 3H bid and had told the director that there had been a failure to alert. The 3H bidder explains that he/she wishes to bid 4S over 4H based on his/her application of bridge logic. Does the 3H bidder have an option to bid 4S over 4H ? Thanks, RichM |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
In UI cases the hand is played out, and then the TD adjusts if necessary. He never changes the contract or the bidding during the hand, because he needs time and consideration to make judgements. In fact, no competent TD ever looks at a hand until it is finished. If called, all he will do is to decide whether there has been UI, and perhaps tell people generally the effects - reading Law 73C to them is not a bad shot, that being the law that tells the players what to do.
So if called at the time of the 4  bid he will not affect anything - except because of misinformation he will allow the other side their last call back. Anything else is for the end of the hand, and I gave my iopinion of what he would do then some posts ago! As to your second question, if the player asks the TD whether he may make a particular call, the TD will not and may not answer because he is not allowed to make judgement rulings during the hand. The TD will explain the law, if asked.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:40:34 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status