[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-31, 16:07, said:

I wouldn't assume they had such unworkable agreement about when to overcall and when to use a split range two-suited call. If you adjusted, you would be calling them morons as well.
That might be true, but I would need more evidence..and it wouldn't be in the form of a poll.
Apparently two of the ten are unfamiliar with split-range bids.

Either that, or they do not agree with your logic and/or approach. My experience of some of the people who play split range bids is that they are unscientific, and have not really agreed what happens next: they just bid the first suit and see. You seem to assume everyone will bid your way.

MickyB, on 2012-October-31, 16:29, said:

Eh?

Obviously, I have made some assumptions, such as the TD has only polled players that he considers to be peers of the one in question, and that we consider it clear that the hesitation suggests action. I just don't understand why a TD would do a poll and then decide that his results are wrong without a pretty obvious reason.

Of course there will always be borderline cases, shockingly I am aware of this, I just think the line is currently drawn in the wrong place. The old 70% rule was closer to the mark IMO than this new 25%/8% stuff.

I look forward to your providing more detail as to how I have completely misunderstood the whole UI and LA business.

You seem to think that the Law is based on poling, and therefore is wrong because of this. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. You also give as a reason for the Law being wrong that this is a borderline case, which may or may not be true, but does not seem to me to make the Law wrong.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 17:11, said:

You seem to think that the Law is based on poling, and therefore is wrong because of this. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. You also give as a reason for the Law being wrong that this is a borderline case, which may or may not be true, but does not seem to me to make the Law wrong.

I think you got that backwards. MickyB claims that polling would lead to the conclusion that this is a borderline case (the poll says that pass is not an LA, but if one vote would have gone the other way, it would have been), whereas in reality this case is straightforward: Pass cannot possibly be an LA.

I agree with Micky. This case is very simple: Pass is not an LA since West's choice to bid 1♠ implied that he was planning to bid 3♦. Those people who passed (or considered a pass) in the poll do not understand the principles underlying the EW system.

You can find similar results in polls in cases of forcing passes. The pair may have well documented that a pass is 100% forcing and hence they will have to bid or double. But if you hold a poll, invariably there will be players who will pass the hand out. They simply have not understood the system.

Rik

[bluejak]

All you are saying here - which I have said several times - is that you do not just count votes in a poll. MickyB seemed to say the UI Laws were wrong based on this poll.

[CamHenry]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-31, 17:10, said:

Is East familiar with responsive doubles?

Who needs a responsive double when you have a responsive hesitation available instead?

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 17:11, said:

You seem to think that the Law is based on poling, and therefore is wrong because of this. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. You also give as a reason for the Law being wrong that this is a borderline case, which may or may not be true, but does not seem to me to make the Law wrong.

But 16B uses "given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it" as part of the definition. Some RA's even specify percentages.

How do you ascertain "a significant proportion" and "some" without polling?

[paulg]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 17:11, said:

My experience of some of the people who play split range bids is that they are unscientific, and have not really agreed what happens next: they just bid the first suit and see.

My experience is similar and I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, if you are playing split-range bids, why would you play any other way.

Trinidad, on 2012-October-31, 17:25, said:

I think you got that backwards. MickyB claims that polling would lead to the conclusion that this is a borderline case (the poll says that pass is not an LA, but if one vote would have gone the other way, it would have been), whereas in reality this case is straightforward: Pass cannot possibly be an LA.

I agree with Micky. This case is very simple: Pass is not an LA since West's choice to bid 1♠ implied that he was planning to bid 3♦. Those people who passed (or considered a pass) in the poll do not understand the principles underlying the EW system.

I agree that this case is simple but not because West is forced to bid by his system. He should bid because it is the right thing to do with this hand on this auction.

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 17:28, said:

All you are saying here - which I have said several times - is that you do not just count votes in a poll. MickyB seemed to say the UI Laws were wrong based on this poll.

If your judgement is that this is a simple case and you can perform a poll effectively, then counting votes seems very sensible.

This looks a simple case. A poll can be done effectively because even those who say, "I would use Michaels", would understand if you said that you are playing split-range and make an effective choice. So counting votes is sensible. But the Laws almost forced an incorrect decision. This is the concern.

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2012-November-01, 03:30, said:

But 16B uses "given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it" as part of the definition. Some RA's even specify percentages.

How do you ascertain "a significant proportion" and "some" without polling?

What makes you think that you can ascertain that better with a poll of a couple of players?

Rik

[StevenG]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-01, 04:38, said:

What makes you think that you can ascertain that better with a poll of a couple of players?

What methodology exists, other than a (sensible) poll?

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-01, 04:38, said:

What makes you think that you can ascertain that better with a poll of a couple of players?

StevenG, on 2012-November-01, 05:07, said:

What methodology exists, other than a (sensible) poll?

What makes everyone think they are answering a question by asking another one?

[TimG]

mycroft, on 2012-October-31, 09:53, said:

For once I agree with aguahombre. When they chose to bid 1♠ rather than 2♦ or 2♥, it was with the intent of showing their real suit later. They obviously were comfortable with doing it at the 3 level, because that's where the auction almost certainly was going to be.

This doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the reason we play good/bad Michaels is that there are objectives with good or bad hands that can be satisfied with a cue-bid overcall while the objectives are not the same when we hold an in between two-suiter. When I play good/bad, I do not assume I will always be able to show both my suits when I hold the in between strength.

[Codo]

But the discussion whether you should or would always show your second suit is senseless in this example.
You are in the pass out seat, so noone from flesh and blood will pass- the one in the poll was surely a zombie. Partners hesitation does not show undisclosed values. You know he holds some values and not many spades.

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2012-November-01, 05:07, said:

What methodology exists, other than a (sensible) poll?

A good TD, with a history of similar cases in his bagage, is a much better judge. The same is true for good, experienced players. They can be a good judge of what the peers of lesser players would do.

The statistics that are contained in the experience of the TD or a suitable player are so much better than the statistics that you can get by polling a few of the player's peers.

In many cases where the decision of a TD is based on an unbiased, properly worded poll of a few of the player's peers, the accuracy is not better than that of a decision made by a coin toss (heads: Pass is an LA; tails: it is not). That leads to a "The TD's decision was based on a poll, so it must be correct." false sense of security.

But I think that an experienced TD who takes a serious look at the case will do much better than a coin toss. If he is advised by an experienced good player that will improve matters even more.

Rik

[Trinidad]

In short:

I am all for consulting good, experienced players.
I am against polling peers of the player.

Those are two entirely different things.

Rik

[bluejak]

StevenG, on 2012-November-01, 03:30, said:

But 16B uses "given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it" as part of the definition. Some RA's even specify percentages.

How do you ascertain "a significant proportion" and "some" without polling?

Judgement. TDs judge situations - it is what they do.

StevenG, on 2012-November-01, 05:07, said:

What methodology exists, other than a (sensible) poll?

Experience, discussion and so forth.

Furthermore, if you take a poll, you do not just count answers, you also find out the logic, what the situation means and so on. This aids judgement.

In an earlier post someone denigrates one of the votes as saying he does not understand. Well, maybe, or maybe the poster is wrong. But what you do is talk to people to help form a judgement. People who have their own ideas may change them based on the arguments advanced.

[helene_t]

I wouldn't have bothered to poll, this is clear-cut. Dbl may be an LA but I don't see how 3♦ is suggested over dbl by the BIT. And dbl might have led to 5♦ as well.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 17:11, said:

My experience of some of the people who play split range bids is that they are unscientific, and have not really agreed what happens next: they just bid the first suit and see. You seem to assume everyone will bid your way.

True. And it was unfair to categorize those people as morons. Neverthess, to rule that this player, on this hand, had a L.A. to 3D given their split-range agreement would be pretty much saying the same thing.

Change the OP hand a bit, and we have a real L.A. decision to make:

AQJXX
X
QXXXX
AX

Here, with the concentration heavy spade suit, the initial choice of 1♠ would not be predicated on the ranges of Michaels vs. intermediate ---but rather on the judgement that it isn't really a Michaels hand at all and not necessarily prepared to follow through as if it were an intermediate Michaels hand. I would then be one of those who seriously consider passing as a L.A. counter-suggested by the B.I.T.

[mycroft]

TimG, on 2012-November-01, 06:13, said:

This doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the reason we play good/bad Michaels is that there are objectives with good or bad hands that can be satisfied with a cue-bid overcall while the objectives are not the same when we hold an in between two-suiter. When I play good/bad, I do not assume I will always be able to show both my suits when I hold the in between strength.

Again, I chose to bid 1♠ with Kxxxx, hiding AQTxx. These are not random "two suits". Switch the suits, (as my esteemed colleague above is not the only person to suggest), and we have a much different problem.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-November-01, 17:28, said:

Again, I chose to bid 1♠ with Kxxxx, hiding AQTxx. These are not random "two suits". Switch the suits, (as my esteemed colleague above is not the only person to suggest), and we have a much different problem.

This is getting scary.

[mycroft]

"I have finally arrived" he says. I'm still waiting to find out if *I've* arrived...

[blackshoe]

You can't get there from here.