[blml] Profit from irregularites

[David Barton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites


>
> from Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> *****************************
> "Never laugh at live dragons."
>                     'The Hobbit'
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
> To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:43 AM
> Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites
>
>
>> On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL
>> district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different
>> meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an
>> opponent's insufficient bid.  Currently players like David Stevenson who
>> believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage.
>>
>> I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without specific
>> permission, you must not employ agreements that are geared to taking
>> advantage of irregularities by opponents. What is the WBF position? and
>> the position under local jurisdictions?
>>
> +=+ It may be that discussion has modified my opinion. What I believe
> currently is that there is no authorization in the laws for basing a call 
> on
> an illegal call (see Law 16). The effect of the laws is obscure, even
> murky, when under Law 27 an insufficient bid is "treated as legal". This
> does not make it a legal call but it is treated as though it were. So how,
> I ask myself, does the statement in Law 16 cope with this? I suggest
> that, whether from John Shuster,  David Stevenson, or from a member
> of the WBF Laws Committee, no assertion on the legality of the method
> carries authority. For the time being the solution rests with subordinate
> regulation.
>      In drafting a new code of laws I argue that a clearer authority 
> should
> be established for regulation of such agreements. As to the policy, I am
> opposed to exposure of players of lesser experience to such methods;
> I am neutral on its desirability in the upper echelons of the game.
>     The WBF Systems Policy is silent on the matter; in WBF events the
> question reduces to the fundamental problem "do the laws authorize it?"
>
>                                                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+

I am confused here - my usual state of affairs..
L16C gives the NOS the right to base its calls on withdrawn calls.
What we are discussing here is L75A "...AGREEMENTS must arise from the
calls...."

Perhaps an example will make it clearer.
W    N    E     S
1H   2D  X
At this point N calls for the director and explains that 2D was a mispull.
The director allows a change of call to 3D and the auction now goes
W    N    E     S
1H   3D  P     P
3S

Now as I understand it (and I probably don't) L16C gives W the right to
base his 3S call on East's withdrawn sputnik double. However L75A does
not allow of any agreement that he has done so. So if E now passes they
almost certainly have an illegal agreement.

Have I got this right?

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 07/12/2006 01:27