[blackshoe]

MickyB, on 2013-March-26, 08:24, said:

In this case, 3D may be the only LA, but that is irrelevant to any adjustment.

It's irrelevant to whether you give an adjustment for MI. It's not irrelevant to an adjustment for use of UI.

MickyB, on 2013-March-26, 08:24, said:

IHowever, the selection of a bizarre call at the table - one very unlikely to be taken without UI - may justify a PP, even if we conclude that the UI does not suggest passing is more likely to be successful than 3D.

When a player makes a "bizarrre" call it's usually a result of bad judgment. I think most people here are aware that I think we don't give PPs enough, particularly at club level, but if we start giving PPs for bad judgment, we might as well pack it in - we'll have killed the game.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-26, 09:55, said:

When a player makes a "bizarrre" call it's usually a result of bad judgment. I think most people here are aware that I think we don't give PPs enough, particularly at club level, but if we start giving PPs for bad judgment, we might as well pack it in - we'll have killed the game.

That is true in general, but not the case here. The player is judging illegally, not "badly".

He is using the UI to avoid a chain reaction in the auction which could lead to a much bigger disaster.

[lamford]

MickyB, on 2013-March-26, 08:24, said:

In this case, 3D may be the only LA, but that is irrelevant to any adjustment. However, the selection of a bizarre call at the table - one very unlikely to be taken without UI - may justify a PP, even if we conclude that the UI does not suggest passing is more likely to be successful than 3D.

This does not make any sense at all. If South carefully passed to avoid taking any advantage of the UI, then he would hardly merit a PP!

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-26, 10:14, said:

That is true in general, but not the case here. The player is judging illegally, not "badly".

He is using the UI to avoid a chain reaction in the auction which could lead to a much bigger disaster.

Is he? Or did he, in attempting to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, simply fail to completely avoid it?

lamford, on 2013-March-26, 12:11, said:

This does not make any sense at all. If South carefully passed to avoid taking any advantage of the UI, then he would hardly merit a PP!

Precisely.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-26, 14:43, said:

Is he? Or did he, in attempting to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI, simply fail to completely avoid it?

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

Remember the auction has gone 1D-2D-2S (the uncontested version seen by responder with only AI). What player above beginner passes that? What beginner only bids 3D with every quack a working card? Having already denied 4 spades, I vote for 3S.

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-26, 18:52, said:

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

Remember the auction has gone 1D-2D-2S (the uncontested version seen by responder with only AI). What player above beginner passes that? What beginner only bids 3D with every quack a working card? Having already denied 4 spades, I vote for 3S.

Anyone for 4♦?

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-26, 20:42, said:

Anyone for 4♦?

Good choice, actually. But with allegedly 9 tricks is the 4-3 spade fit, possibly ten if pard is 4-6 in the pointed suits, I want to explore for magic.

However, that puts you in the adjustment and PP for passing group.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-26, 18:52, said:

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

Remember the auction has gone 1D-2D-2S (the uncontested version seen by responder with only AI). What player above beginner passes that? What beginner only bids 3D with every quack a working card? Having already denied 4 spades, I vote for 3S.

I guess I spend too much time amongst beginners, because I apparently see a lot more "unreasonable" players than you do.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-26, 20:58, said:

Good choice, actually. But with allegedly 9 tricks is the 4-3 spade fit, possibly ten if pard is 4-6 in the pointed suits, I want to explore for magic.

However, that puts you in the adjustment and PP for passing group.

It's possible to believe that 2[PS] was illegal and merits an adjusted score, without believing that a procedural penalty is appropriate.

Law 16 requires players to think clearly and use their judgement. Some people are better at that than others. It would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty for muddled thinking or for an innocent misjudgement.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-March-27, 01:48, said:

It's possible to believe that 2[PS] was illegal

Indeed it might be a breach of Law 1. Whether pears or plums. Assuming you mean 2♠, that is not the bid being questioned. It is the pass in response which is.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-26, 18:52, said:

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

I do not see how he could tell that bidding 3D would lead to a worse result than passing. And for Pass not to be allowed, it would have to be demonstrably suggested over other bids.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-26, 22:41, said:

I guess I spend too much time amongst beginners, because I apparently see a lot more "unreasonable" players than you do.

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-27, 11:51, said:

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

Especially considering the event was the Platinum Pairs.

[PhilKing]

GreenMan, on 2013-March-27, 12:15, said:

Especially considering the event was the Platinum Pairs.

I'm leaning towards a PPPP - Platinum-Plated Procedural Penalty.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-March-27, 11:46, said:

I do not see how he could tell that bidding 3D would lead to a worse result than passing. And for Pass not to be allowed, it would have to be demonstrably suggested over other bids.

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using. 3D would not be passed unless North fielded the 2D misbid. North should expect some excellent hand with the majors and a diamond fragment unless HE fields.

Pass is demonstrably suggested to not send this auction to the moon.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-27, 13:11, said:

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using. 3D would not be passed unless North fielded the 2D misbid. North should expect some excellent hand with the majors and a diamond fragment unless HE fields.

Pass is demonstrably suggested to not send this auction to the moon.

Why would he be expecting some excellent hand with the majors? His RHO overcalled a strong 1NT. I would think that North would expect South to have a fairly weak hand with the majors.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2013-March-27, 13:37, said:

Why would he be expecting some excellent hand with the majors? His RHO overcalled a strong 1NT. I would think that North would expect South to have a fairly weak hand with the majors.

Whatever his RHO did doesn't mean much to me. Opponents are opponents. I will trust my partner.

This partner, though, has passed orginally. I don't think that is consistent with an "excellent hand with the majors".

Rik

[gnasher]

For ...-2♦(majors);2♠-3♦, I'd expect something like a 4441 or 4540 9-count. Or, depending on who my partner was, I might expect a hand that had misbid with 2♦.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-March-27, 14:23, said:

For ...-2♦(majors);2♠-3♦, I'd expect something like a 4441 or 4540 9-count. Or, depending on who my partner was, I might expect a hand that had misbid with 2♦.

Yes, exactly the hedge I was talking about, and bidding 3D instead of 3S or 4D with the OP hand is certainly suggested by the UI.

AKXX
XX
AKXXX
XX (a minimum for North's AI bidding)

QXXX
AXXXX
QXXX
-- (typical for 2D then 3D using the convention)

North would be launching over 3D, unless he fields the misbid. So, South knows 3D will not end the auction when partner doesn't pick up on his tells; and the result will likely be worse than the illegal pass of 2S.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-27, 11:51, said:

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

Pretty much all appeals that are reported in the daily bulletins at nationals involve expert players in national events. 90% of the time there's at least one well known player in each appeal, and often several.