[ggwhiz]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-25, 18:48, said:

Barmar, you did exactly the right thing for exactly the right reasons. This isn't even remotely close.

100%

[blackshoe]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-25, 18:48, said:

there isn't any reasonable argument that there is no logical alternative to bidding 4♠ for a player who bid only 3♠ the round before.

(Emphasis is mine.) This is the key point that I missed originally. So I retract my earlier "ruling".

[nigel_k]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-25, 18:48, said:

I can't believe there is so much discussion (and bad arguments) about such an easy case. You can argue, if you want, that 4♠ is a good bid or what you should have done last round (I would have bid it a round earlier obviously), but there isn't any reasonable argument that there is no logical alternative to bidding 4♠ for a player who bid only 3♠ the round before. You can't substitute your bridge judgment for that of a player who only bid 3♠ earlier (all of you who think it's so obvious to bid this round, you wouldn't have signed off in 3♠ the last round, right?) Failing to adjust if he bid 4♠ would be one of the worst rulings in the history of bridge, and I do not feel that is an exageration at all.

Barmar, you did exactly the right thing for exactly the right reasons. This isn't even remotely close.

We know that barmar didn't necessarily want to go higher because he told us. But the test is whether pass is a logical alternative for the class of player involved. I think there are two separate classes of player we might consider: those who bid 3♠ because they are unsure whether they want to go higher, and those who are just walking the dog. If we are satisfied that the dog walkers are the correct class for comparison, we might well decide that pass is not a LA.

Of course there is the problem of deciding which class to use. But if the player says they were walking the dog then the director/committee may choose to believe them, especially if the content of the hand provides pretty strong corroborating evidence.

[ggwhiz]

 nigel_k, on 2012-October-26, 01:23, said:

if the player says they were walking the dog

I'm sure an exception is possible but I would file that under self serving statements 99.999% of the time and lean towards 100%.

Trotting out this type of argument in a club game can undermine your own credibility in future situations (especially given your honest take on your 3♠ bid) that mean much more so I'm certain that you did the right thing.

Your opps might be sitting on that next committee.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-25, 21:54, said:

(Emphasis is mine.) This is the key point that I missed originally. So I retract my earlier "ruling".

This is strange. Lalldonn's is the same point made by Corgi, way back in #3. Is this the same Blackshoe who quoted it and disagreed in #4?

[nigel_k]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-October-26, 12:54, said:

I'm sure an exception is possible but I would file that under self serving statements 99.999% of the time and lean towards 100%.

Trotting out this type of argument in a club game can undermine your own credibility in future situations (especially given your honest take on your 3♠ bid) that mean much more so I'm certain that you did the right thing.

Your opps might be sitting on that next committee.

When you look at the hand, isn't your first impression that the player is clearly walking the dog? Self-serving statements can be true and it's not as if you just have the rely on the player's word. There is the actual hand plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

If lalldonn bid 3♠ then 4♠ on that hand and I was on the committee I would not adjust even if he didn't give a reason, because it is overwhelmingly likely that he always intended to bid 4♠ and was hoping to go slow and buy it there.

[ggwhiz]

 nigel_k, on 2012-October-26, 14:22, said:

plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved.

If lalldonn bid 3♠ then 4♠ on that hand and I was on the committee I would not adjust even if he didn't give a reason,

I can't imagine anything worse for the game. You are obviously not qualified to sit on a committee involving lalldonn or any other "known" (to you) player.

[Trinidad]

I strongly disagree with Lalldonn and fully agree with richlp (#13).

The choice between bidding 3♠ to play and 4♠ to play is entirely different from the choice between bidding 4♠ and defending 4♣.

Suppose I let you chose between a Ferrari and a Corvette. You pick the Ferrari and I say: "Oh sorry, it is not available anymore. Instead you can chose between the Corvette and the Chevette."

Don't come and tell me that picking the Chevette is an LA because you didn't like the Corvette the first time.

I think it is crystal clear that declaring 4♠ is much better than defending 4♣. This is true regardless of whether you would have preferred to be in 3♠ or 4♠ the previous round.

Edit: Note that this does not depend on whether or not you intended to walk the dog.

Rik

[lalldonn]

Trinidad, your analogy is so extremely flawed in multiple ways that it's not even worth replying to. You aren't even mixing up apples and oranges, you are mixing up... I don't know, Corvettes and dog turds? Replace Ferrari in your example with "pepperoni pizza" and Chevette with "mushroom pizza" and you would be a lot closer to the mark, although it would still be flawed for other reasons.

As for the walking the dog argument, that is the player's to make, but directors and committees are properly trained to give little weight to such claims unless there is extremely strong evidence to the contrary. And as mentioned, it's not an argument barmar made.

Nigel, thanks for (I think) the vote of confidence, but I would be horribly insulted if you ruled in my favor on the basis that walking the dog on this hand is any sort of reasonable bridge strategy that would be attributed to me. I hope your reaction would be more like "come on lalldonn didn't really bid 3♠, stop yanking my chain and tell me who it really was"

[Trinidad]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-26, 16:15, said:

Trinidad, your analogy is so extremely flawed in multiple ways that it's not even worth replying to.

Then either don't reply or do reply and give some arguments, but don't fake that you reply.

Rik

[nigel_k]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-26, 16:15, said:

Nigel, thanks for (I think) the vote of confidence, but I would be horribly insulted if you ruled in my favor on the basis that walking the dog on this hand is any sort of reasonable bridge strategy that would be attributed to me. I hope your reaction would be more like "come on lalldonn didn't really bid 3♠, stop yanking my chain and tell me who it really was"

Don't fight the hypothetical. You can be insulted because I concluded you were walking the dog, or you can be insulted because I concluded you really didn't want to bid beyond 3♠. Take your pick. Ok maybe you pulled the wrong bidding card. But in that case you still get to bid 4♠ next time.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-26, 13:31, said:

This is strange. Lalldonn's is the same point made by Corgi, way back in #3. Is this the same Blackshoe who quoted it and disagreed in #4?

Yes. Am I not permitted to change my mind? Put it another way: having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

[gnasher]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-26, 16:15, said:

As for the walking the dog argument, that is the player's to make, but directors and committees are properly trained to give little weight to such claims unless there is extremely strong evidence to the contrary.

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-26, 23:33, said:

Yes. Am I not permitted to change my mind? Put it another way: having committed error, must I adhere to it forevermore?

Of course not. I just don't remember having ever quoted a very short sentence and then claiming I missed it. No big deal.

[lalldonn]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-27, 02:00, said:

That sounds quite improper to me. Directors and committees should treat evidence on its merits. If a competent player who is generally known to be honest said that he bid 3♠ for tactical reasons, planning to bid 4♠ on the next round, why wouldn't we believe him?

From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees:

Quote

The committee should be prepared to deal with self-serving testimony. The testimony usually is relevant and should be admitted, but in such cases the committee should not give it any significant weight. The reason is the potential bias by players having a direct interest in the committee deciding matters in a particular way.

In my personal opinion that sounds quite proper. The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest". People in general aren't at all good at gauging the honesty of other people, and I certainly don't trust directors or bridge committees to do it accurately.

[aguahombre]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-27, 09:13, said:

The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest".

Heh. We could have a lot of fun with that phrasing.

[blackshoe]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-27, 09:13, said:

From the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees:

In my personal opinion that sounds quite proper. The part of your post I don't like is "generally known to be honest". People in general aren't at all good at gauging the honesty of other people, and I certainly don't trust directors or bridge committees to do it accurately.

The bottom line is that in making rulings, directors and committees are expected, even required, to use their judgment. That includes judgment of the honesty of the players involved. Some may not like that, but that's the way it is.

[lalldonn]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-27, 10:44, said:

The bottom line is that in making rulings, directors and committees are expected, even required, to use their judgment. That includes judgment of the honesty of the players involved. Some may not like that, but that's the way it is.

That doesn't make it desirable, just sometimes necessary. In the particular hypothetical under discussion (a player claims he was bidding 3♠ as an attempt to 'walk to dog' and always planning on bidding 4♠ next) they are specifically instructed to not give that claim significant weight.

[blackshoe]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-27, 11:02, said:

That doesn't make it desirable, just sometimes necessary. In the particular hypothetical under discussion (a player claims he was bidding 3♠ as an attempt to 'walk to dog' and always planning on bidding 4♠ next) they are specifically instructed to not give that claim significant weight.

I made no comment as to desirability or lack thereof. As for your second sentence, reference please?

[lalldonn]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-27, 11:29, said:

I made no comment as to desirability or lack thereof.

Well that's what we were discussing. If you are changing the topic I'm not all that interested in participating.