Allowable ?

Gra

QJxxx Kxxx x AQx
(4D) - P - (5D) - X with the hand above at love all pairs local club duplicate
The pass over the (stop,4D) was agreed longer than 10 seconds, say 25 seconds.
The doubler is an aggresive bidder and though rights reserved no ruling was requested even though the double was a success.
My initial thoughts were 'just another aggresive bid' but now think that was wrong as too much risk removed from the double.

1. Should one's knowledge of a player's style be considered either in isolation or in conjunction with a poll ?
2. Should the double be allowed ?

Abbeybear

In defining a logical alternative, Law 16B1(b) refers to the class of players, using the methods of the partnership. IMO "methods" includes style as well as what system and conventions they play.

So yes, you should be considering the class of players taking into account that the player has an aggressive style.

Double is generally always suggested over pass by the UI in these high-level auctions, because it caters to pretty much whatever the player who broke tempo may have had in mind.

So is pass a logical alternative for the class of players you should be considering? I don't know, but perhaps not.

weejonnie

Well it is, I think, 'class, that is the operative word that defines style. Abbeybear is right in that you should consider polling aggressive players see ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2011.pdf 11.012

Senior_Kibitzer

I can't remember the last time I had a Hesitation > Polling for LAs ruling where the player who has taken the questioned action has not claimed that they are an aggressive bidder!