[lamford]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-22, 11:31, said:

The probability rising and the probability being 100% are two different things.

That's why I put know in italics. I clearly should have used "strongly suspect".

[gwnn]

OK well usually using italics puts emphasis, not doubt on a word, but thanks for clearing that up.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-22, 06:26, said:

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands as I know he's aceless.

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands if I move on as I know he's aceless.

[gnasher]

 gwnn, on 2012-October-22, 11:42, said:

OK well usually using italics puts emphasis, not doubt on a word, but thanks for clearing that up.

People sometimes incorreclty use quotation marks for emphasis. There's an attractive symmetry about Lamford's use of italics to indicate inexactitude.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2012-October-22, 12:39, said:

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands if I move on as I know he's aceless.

Agreed, which is why I'm going to ask the questions I want the answer to.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-22, 13:11, said:

Agreed, which is why I'm going to ask the questions I want the answer to.

I don't even know how the auction went after 4D by North, but it is not clear that you will be able to ask the questions let alone get a meaningful response. It seems that there is not much point discussing this thread further until we get more information from the TD or AC on North-South's methods.

[bluejak]

Why do I not remember the hand? When was it?

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 19:14, said:

Why do I not remember the hand? When was it?

It was an appeal from the Pairs qualifier at the Autumn Congress in Stratford. It was board 10 of the first session and was bid to 6♦ by your opponents when you played it, giving you 18 out of 92 MPs.

I cannot answer why you do not remember the hand. Perhaps because it was more than 48 hours ago, perhaps because it did not seem interesting at the time, or perhaps because the hands given were dummy and declarer.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2012-October-22, 14:10, said:

It seems that there is not much point discussing this thread further until we get more information from the TD or AC on North-South's methods.

I doubt if you'll get any more information. The TD at the table is not here, and as far as I know nor are any of the AC members. One of the players is but is choosing not to get involved, as is his right.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2012-October-21, 18:39, said:

I am told that both winners of the A final at Stratford would choose Pass.

I am told by the appellant that this is not correct. The appeals advisors said that they thought pass was a logical alternative, not that they would choose to pass.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2012-October-20, 17:30, said:

---

Matchpoints
a) What calls would you seriously consider?
b) What call would you make?

Coming late to this, but I would bid on by whatever relevant methods we happened to be playing, at MPs as well as IMPs. But I think Pass is a LA, as evidenced by what happened at our table, where our opponents did just that after what was, I think, an identical sequence. +660.

Mind you, they may have thought they were just consolidating the round, because we'd just converted what should have been an outright bottom for them on the previous board into an outright top by misplaying it. N had doubled 4H, which wasn't made, but his opening HA lead crashed his partner's K (giving an opportunity for +1), and it was clear to them that the contract was always there on a better line, so he may have been feeling a bit more cautious on this next hand. Just speculation on my part, and obviously not a factor in a judgment ruling on this hand, but nevertheless what can happen in real life.

[blackshoe]

That one pair, who may or may not be peers of the pair in question for this ruling, chose to pass in a situation where there are considerations which we will not apply here, does not make pass a logical alternative.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 12:18, said:

That one pair, who may or may not be peers of the pair in question for this ruling, chose to pass in a situation where there are considerations which we will not apply here, does not make pass a logical alternative.

Bit snappy, blackshoe. The substance of my post was (a) that in my view Pass is an LA, and (b) this was bid at at least one other table after an identical sequence with identical methods. If I then tried to leaven the post with an anecdote to go with it, I'm certainly regretting that now.

Since I don't know the identity of the pair in question, I can't say whether or not you would regard our opponents as their peers, but they were at least (a) playing in the same event and (b) playing the same methods, which seems like a reasonable start to be going on with - certainly no evidence to the contrary. At least I was actually there, so have probably a better idea than you of the nature of the field. Oh, and by the way the contract was exactly 3NT by S at 21 out of 47 tables which suggests that, whatever methods they're playing, plenty of N/Ss thought it wasn't worth going further.

Will that do?

[blackshoe]

Snappy? I don't think so.

It seems to me the anecdote was in support of your conclusion that pass is an LA. That's fine, but the circumstances in the anecdote are different to what happened at the table in question, so in my view it isn't relevant.

I don't know any of the people involved, so I don't know who does or does not fit the "peers" category. I said so. wtp? No, I wasn't there. Should I just defer to you, then, and assume that you must be right because you were?

I try to judge cases on the evidence presented. Others make assumptions, and judge the case on their assumptions. Either way, new evidence often comes to light. In such case, my judgement on the case may certainly change. You present, in effect, the state of the traveller. New evidence to me, and evidence of a kind I was taught not to rely on in making this kind of ruling. So again, if 21 of 47 tables played in 3NT, I say "so what"? I don't see it changing my view.

All I'm trying to do is respond to what's posted in the thread. Take offense if you must, but I assure you none was intended.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 21:26, said:

You present, in effect, the state of the traveller. New evidence to me, and evidence of a kind I was taught not to rely on in making this kind of ruling.

I agree that directors shouldn't rely on the evidence of other results, but they shouldn't reject it out of hand either. If you knew that most of the field was playing the same methods, the traveller would be very informative. That's probably not true of this particular sequence in this particular event, but in some English fields it would be.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 21:26, said:

Snappy? I don't think so.
...
All I'm trying to do is respond to what's posted in the thread. Take offense if you must, but I assure you none was intended.

"Dismissive" might have been a better characterisation - it just left me wishing I hadn't bothered to post - but I'm sure you didn't mean to cause offense.

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 21:26, said:

It seems to me the anecdote was in support of your conclusion that pass is an LA.

Actually, no - the fact that they passed is limited evidence in support my view that Pass is a LA, but, if you think about it, the anecdote suggests that this pair had a special reason for not bidding on despite doing so being indicated.

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 21:26, said:

I don't know any of the people involved, so I don't know who does or does not fit the "peers" category. I said so. wtp? No, I wasn't there. Should I just defer to you, then, and assume that you must be right because you were?

No, and I didn't say that. But, as I said, (a) playing in the same event and (b) playing the same methods, as our opponents were, at least ticks a basic box or two, and perhaps suggests that you needn't have been as dismissive as you were of my first post from your position of such limited knowledge of the field.

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 21:26, said:

I try to judge cases on the evidence presented. Others make assumptions, and judge the case on their assumptions. Either way, new evidence often comes to light. In such case, my judgement on the case may certainly change. You present, in effect, the state of the traveller. New evidence to me, and evidence of a kind I was taught not to rely on in making this kind of ruling. So again, if 21 of 47 tables played in 3NT, I say "so what"? I don't see it changing my view.

I'm not suggesting that looking at the traveller is the way to go. However, we're not in a position to poll peers of the pair in question - we're necessarily polling ourselves, who may or may not be peers - and we can at least take note of the traveller as a very loose proxy for such a poll, certainly as regards whether passing 3NT is a LA. The main difficulty is that we don't know what methods other pairs were playing, and one reason I posted was because the pair at my table actually were playing the same methods.

FWIW, I broadly agree with the analysis Lamford gives on the first page of this thread (msg 15), the main conclusions of which were that bidding on is demonstrably suggested but that Pass is a LA. But I'm probably dragging this thread out beyond its natural lifespan.

[gordontd]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-October-25, 03:10, said:

ut I'm probably dragging this thread out beyond its natural lifespan.

Especially since lamford set such store by information that was incorrect.

[blackshoe]

If I was dismissive of anything, it was of the idea that a pair who, playing identical methods to the pair in question or not, and who chose to pass because of the result on a previous board, provides evidence that pass is an LA for our offenders. If your example pair passed because of their evaluation of the hand they were bidding, then yes, that's good evidence that pass is an LA. But not if they did so because of what happened on a previous board. Perhaps I gave the idea too much weight — you did say you were speculating.

[PeterAlan]

Blackshoe, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough in the first post.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2012-October-25, 03:30, said:

Especially since lamford set such store by information that was incorrect.

I was told by the appellant that the two people he consulted would have passed on the given auction. I do not "set such store" by their opinions, which are just part of the evidence. What they would bid at the table is not that relevant, just as what some others would bid is not. They are all stronger than the pair in question, as I have discovered by scrutinising the travellers. Much more important, especially as we have limited information on the pair's methods, is that over half the field missed the slam; I think 21 out of 47 played in 3NT, and only 19 in 6D, with the usual collection of loonies. They would, presumably, have either started with a weak NT or something that showed a weak NT, and the plethora of 3NT on the travellers - you can view them on the EBU site - suggest that it is quite difficult to bid this slam.

Those who think Pass is not an LA are not living in the real world. We are not talking about experts here, we are talking about a South who bid a slow 3NT without a heart stop, and got away with it because of, in my opinion, a poor decision by the TD and AC.