[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-October-13, 14:38, said:

I understand. I agree that 6♥ is an LA. I presume you think 7♥ is also an LA.

I don't, as it happens, but clearly you do so I was attempting to address how I would rule if I did consider 7♥ an LA.

Quote

I think the UI tells you that partner is not making a GS-try, or he would have bid 6♥ immediately.

This makes no sense to me. People do not tend to make grand-tries "immediately". I could believe a slow 5♥ might have been intended as a grand-try (though even that is a stretch), but not a fast 5♥. It is only the UI that makes a grand-try even remotely plausible, so I'm certainly not allowed to act as though that's what partner intended.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-October-13, 16:09, said:

This makes no sense to me. People do not tend to make grand-tries "immediately". I could believe a slow 5♥ might have been intended as a grand-try (though even that is a stretch), but not a fast 5♥. It is only the UI that makes a grand-try even remotely plausible, so I'm certainly not allowed to act as though that's what partner intended.

We will have to agree to differ as to whether 7♥ is an LA, and I cannot yet answer that question without polling. However, I can answer your point about whether people make grand-slam tries immediately. They clearly do not, as FrancesHinden correctly states. However, they do generally sign off in small slam almost immediately when they are missing a key-card.

Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

[Aardv]

This whole argument about a grand slam try still makes no sense to me.

1♠-4♠, 4NT-5♥, 5♠ is a sign-off, so 1♥-4♥, 4NT-5♠, 5♥, in a world where 5♥ is sufficient, would be a sign-off too.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2014-October-13, 16:57, said:

This whole argument about a grand slam try still makes no sense to me.

1♠-4♠, 4NT-5♥, 5♠ is a sign-off, so 1♥-4♥, 4NT-5♠, 5♥, in a world where 5♥ is sufficient, would be a sign-off too.

I don't think that is a legal approach. You are not allowed to have agreements regarding your own side's infractions, implicit or otherwise.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-October-13, 16:43, said:

We will have to agree to differ as to whether 7♥ is an LA, and I cannot yet answer that question without polling. However, I can answer your point about whether people make grand-slam tries immediately. They clearly do not, as FrancesHinden correctly states. However, they do generally sign off in small slam almost immediately when they are missing a key-card.

Exactly. If partner thought we were missing a keycard he would have acted immediately. He did not act immediately (but this fact is UI). So the UI suggests we aren't missing a keycard. This means 7♥ is suggested by the UI over 6♥.

[PhilKing]

 lamford, on 2014-October-13, 17:16, said:

I don't think that is a legal approach. You are not allowed to have agreements regarding your own side's infractions, implicit or otherwise.

Exactly. It is completely illegal to agree that 5♥ is a grand slam try so it is fallacy to decree that it must be one. That being the case, we have to fall back on common sense. To me, common sense suggests that only a drooler would bid 7♥ regardless of the hesitation.

[sanst]

Why is nobody discussing the action of S? Self directing and, at the end of the evening, asking for an opinoin, is not done, not n my book anyway. Either you call a director at the appropriate time, or you accept whatever happens. If no (other) director is available and you still want to play by the book, join club where there is one.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-October-13, 17:54, said:

Exactly. If partner thought we were missing a keycard he would have acted immediately. He did not act immediately (but this fact is UI). So the UI suggests we aren't missing a keycard. This means 7♥ is suggested by the UI over 6♥.

I think you are right. However, the AI also tells us that we are not missing a key-card (partner did not bid 6H whether slowly or otherwise). If partner had bid 6H immediately and in tempo, we would have passed. Any alternative to 6H is surely a GS-try. I think I was wrong to focus on the missing key-card issue. It does not seem right that making a GS-try slowly means it is not, but others seem to think it is acceptable to so conclude, so I will concede to the majority.

[StevenG]

 lamford, on 2014-October-14, 04:08, said:

However, the AI also tells us that we are not missing a key-card.

All the AI tells us is that partner made a mistake somewhere.

[pgrice]

 PhilKing, on 2014-October-14, 00:35, said:

Exactly. It is completely illegal to agree that 5♥ is a grand slam try so it is fallacy to decree that it must be one. That being the case, we have to fall back on common sense. To me, common sense suggests that only a drooler would bid 7♥ regardless of the hesitation.

I find the use of "drooler" as a derogatory term unacceptable in polite company ...

[gordontd]

 pgrice, on 2014-October-14, 06:47, said:

I find the use of "drooler" as a derogatory term unacceptable in polite company ...

No doubt he'll avoid its use should he ever find himself in such company.

[PhilKing]

 pgrice, on 2014-October-14, 06:47, said:

I find the use of "drooler" as a derogatory term unacceptable in polite company ...

And kicking East when he is down would be considered unacceptable in almost any company other than that of lawyers.

I'll take my morality lecures from people more deserving of respect if that is OK by you.

[barmar]

 PhilKing, on 2014-October-14, 07:38, said:

I'll take my morality lecures from people more deserving of respect if that is OK by you.

Please avoid personal attacks like this.

[lamford]

 pgrice, on 2014-October-14, 06:47, said:

I find the use of "drooler" as a derogatory term unacceptable in polite company ...

I do not know whether the meaning is different in the US to the UK. I would not use it, as I think it is insulting to handicapped people, and particularly those with cerebral palsy. I recall Tiger Woods getting in hot water for saying: "But as soon as I got on the green I was a spaz." Apparently that has a different connotation in the US and the UK, so maybe we should give PhilKing the benefit of the doubt.

[PhilKing]

 lamford, on 2014-October-14, 10:26, said:

I do not know whether the meaning is different in the US to the UK. I would not use it, as I think it is insulting to handicapped people, and particularly those with cerebral palsy. I recall Tiger Woods getting in hot water for saying: "But as soon as I got on the green I was a spaz." Apparently that has a different connotation in the US and the UK, so maybe we should give PhilKing the benefit of the doubt.

The objection was correct, but the source was unacceptable.

[aguahombre]

There must be history among Gordon, PK, and pgPrice (whom I don't know) because his posts on this thread do not seem deserving of the venom.

One thing I believe has been underaddressed is the acceptance by South -- the TD -- and the predictable litigious outcome. Seems as if South made sure there would be a problem beyond the insufficient bid. This should be AI to West, IMO, and bidding a sufficient 6H would be the only appropriate action by him.

[FrancesHinden]

 lamford, on 2014-October-14, 10:26, said:

I do not know whether the meaning is different in the US to the UK. I would not use it, as I think it is insulting to handicapped people, and particularly those with cerebral palsy. I recall Tiger Woods getting in hot water for saying: "But as soon as I got on the green I was a spaz." Apparently that has a different connotation in the US and the UK, so maybe we should give PhilKing the benefit of the doubt.

Not sure why the US is relevant. Aardv, pgrice, gordontd and philking are all English (or at least they are all living and playing in england).

[pgrice]

 PhilKing, on 2014-October-14, 07:38, said:

And kicking East when he is down would be considered unacceptable in almost any company other than that of lawyers.

I'll take my morality lecures from people more deserving of respect if that is OK by you.

Sadly not. I found myself in an situation I had not previously encountered … a slow insufficient bid … so I asked experienced players what they thought of the situation. As far as I was concerned the table result of 6H= was perfectly equitable and I had no real expectation of a ruling that would change that. Doesn't stop me from being interested in knowing if there is any case law for such occurrences or different methodology to be followed. If that is "lawyering" I'll put my hand up.

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-14, 11:10, said:

There must be history among Gordon, PK, and pgPrice (whom I don't know) because his posts on this thread do not seem deserving of the venom.

No, no history. I was just trying to make a light-hearted comment to ease any venom. I must have failed. Sorry.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-14, 12:36, said:

Not sure why the US is relevant. Aardv, pgrice, gordontd and philking are all English (or at least they are all living and playing in england).

I only know the last two of these, and I only commented on the second's post. I do not know him, nor was there anything in his profile, nor in aardv's profile to tell me where he played. I did know that barmar, who had stepped in, was from the US. Contributors to the thread seemed to be from both sides of the pond.