Problem with polling
There was a hesitation case, and I've decided to run a poll. The auction was:
North hesitated before passing 4D, which was agreed by all players. My understanding is that the poll should ask players what they would bid with South’s hand at that point in the auction, without mentioning the hesitation.
The problem I anticipate is that some players may respond by saying they would have supported hearts earlier in the auction. I plan to ask some club players who were not involved in the hand, and I’ve also posted the hand on Bridge Winners. As expected, several people chose to abstain.
What’s the best way to carry out the polling in this situation?
Comments
The short answer is that people who would have bid earlier in the auction are not peers of this player and their answers should be discounted.
This may make your life difficult in practice by limiting your pool of pollees, possibly to the point where you don't have enough of them, so you may have to put up with simply asking wheter they think it would be reasonable for someone who had passed earlier to bid now.
Note that this isn't really a case where you can say "you wouldn't bid now because you didn't bid earlier" because the opponents bidding one more changes the situation for you.
Did the player give a reason for bidding 4H? Was it plausible?
In principle, you talk the pollees through the auction. asking then on each occasion what they would bid as South. If they manage to pass on four occasions, then you can regard them as peers and listen to what they would bid at their fifth turn.
You might get away with this procedure polling at the World Championship, but the players at the club are likely to have wandered off before getting to the fifth round of the auction.
@gordonrainsford said:
That's what the player said. He said the bidding of 4D pushed him to bid 4H. I and many players wouldn't bid this way, but I consider his reason plausible to a certain extent.
Just an observation, but I would judge that the hesitation in this case is not particularly revealing in terms of UI. It looks like N has 5-5 or possibly 6-5 in spades and hearts and we also know that both E and W have passed hands. We don't know from the hesitation whether N is considering 4H or X. In addition, S knows for sure that E/W have a maximum of one heart loser playing in diamonds. So while I suppose 4H is suggested by the UI to some extent it is actually difficult to see why S would not bid 4H IMO, with or without the UI.
May I check if the Laws allow the TD to award a weighted score in this situation, like 80% 4H by N and 20% 4D by E? Thanks.
No. Not in cases of unauthorised information. If South bid 4H and the TD rules that pass is a logical alternative, then 4H is not permitted by Law 16B - this make 4H illegal. And Law 12C1(c) does not allow a weighting which includes the illegal action.
Also see the EBU White Book 8.16.3: Weighting when an action is disallowed (‘Reveley’ rulings)
Thank you both for your help.
Sometimes (not here) the same final contract can be reach by another (legal) route: in that case it must be included in the weightings.
GR: "The short answer is that people who would have bid earlier in the auction are not peers of this player and their answers should be discounted."
This is a widely-held belief, but I don't understand the logic of it. Peers are players of similar standard and ability; they don't have to reproduce exactly the same actions in every situation. This hand is rather extreme, but often when I'm polled I find I might not have made the same decisions up to that point, but provided they are reasonable I feel quite happy to be considered a peer.
Peers of the player is the language used in the law book. If a player, in this case, cannot imagine not having already bid 4H that does mean their answer to this poll isn't as useful when trying to guage the action of the current North ("of course I'd bid 4H, it was obvious to bid it two rounds ago"). I'd certainly struggle to give a sensible answer to this problem. So we interpret peer as including issues of style and making the same decisions.
And yes, this can be an inherent barrier to polling, as both Robin and Gordan alluded to. If a player views the actions up to that point as sensible but they'd probably have done something different sometimes that can be used.
Yes, James, I agree that this particular hand poses a problem for polling. If I were given the hand and the auction so far my response would be: "I'd better make up for lost time by bidding four hearts now".
But in general if I consider one of the earlier bids in the auction a reasonable choice, albeit not the one I would have chosen, I don't feel this disbars me from being a peer of the player.
In theory, players are either peers or not peers. But in this case I didn’t think I could find enough true peers to make a meaningful poll.
In the end I ruled that the table result should stand, as I decided that Pass is not a logical alternative. This was based on the poll results and my discussions with some club players. My thinking was: if South had to be substituted at this point for any reason, would the substitute bid 4H here?
South happens to be one of my regular partners, so I have some idea of how he thinks. My guess is that he wanted to play in hearts but at a lower level. When the opponents competed to the 4-level, he then decided to bid 4H. Gordon's reminder that this isn't really a case where you can say "you wouldn't bid now because you didn't bid earlier" because the opponents bidding one more changes the situation for you is very helpful here. South's bidding is consistent both with his explanation and his bidding style. Of course, I tried not to let my personal knowledge of him affect the ruling.