[blml] Online Bridge

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Steve,

Steve Willner wrote:

>>From: Herman De Wael <herman at hdw.be>
>>...  we should read L75 (as well as L40) with care.
>>Nowhere in L75 does it say what the TD should do with the MI.
>>OTOH, L40 (C) does say clearly what the TD should do, and it is to 
>>award a AS, not to scrap the board.
> 
> 
> Who said anything about scrapping the board?  What a ridiculous idea.
> 

You did, by saying that the board should be scored 40/40. Or 
something. Or anything. Anything else than an AS. If you advocate 
giving an AS, then you are of the same opinion as me, namely that 
there is no difference between MI and CPU.

> 
>>So Steve's reasoning is clearly wrong. 
>>MI and CPU are just two names for the same thing.
> 
> 
> Let's look again.  Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but 
> through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17.  If we rule 
> under L75 and L40C, the adjusted score is on the basis that North opens 
> 1NT, and EW know the correct range.  If instead -- for whatever reason 
> -- we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North did 
> not open with the illegal 1NT bid.  The different laws applied will in 
> general lead to different outcomes.
> 

But what would you do if you say that NS do not open 1NT? Isn't that 
the same as "scrapping the board"?

> It is convenient to name infractions.  Infractions of L75 leading to 
> L40C are called "MI," while infractions of L40B are called "CPU."  If 
> you want to call them something different, that's fine with me.  The 
> point is that there are two different results, depending on which 
> infraction occurred.
> 

No there are not. Nowhere in L40B is there mention of any way for the 
TD to deal with the infraction. Only L40C applies, and this is my 
reason for calling CPU and MI the same thing.

Tell me what ruling you give for the people who are, through your 
reasoning, not allowed to open 1NT?

> What I'm not sure of is when L40B should apply.  I don't believe it is 
> limited to intentional failures.  The most famous case of "CPU" was the 
> Polish pair who failed to file advance convention cards, but I don't 
> believe they were intentionally trying to cheat.  I've given my 
> suggestion but am by no means certain it's correct.
> 

But even the Polish pair (about whom I believe the ruling to be 
totally incorrect) were adjusted under L40C. Far too harshly IMO, but 
still on the basis of L40C. It's the only one that applies.

A pair open 1NT, and they are playing this as 12-14, which is allowed 
under the CoC. For some different reasons:
1) they forget to alert
2) they forget to announce
3) they play in a non-alertable environment and they forgot to 
pre-announce
4) their CC is marked wrongly (15-17)
5) their CC is marked wrongly (12-14 on the interior, nothing on the 
exterior)
6) a wrong CC is on the table
7) they are playing "SAYC" but believe that includes weak NT.
8) the partner forgets that they are playing 12-14 and explains as 15-17
9 - 278) anything else (we've all seen them)

When do you call this CPU and when MI?

Let's suppose that the bidding concludes pass-3NT-all pass
Now if you rule MI, let's assume that the ruling is the changing of 
one trick, because the opening lead might be different.

What are you going to rule if you decide it's CPU? And why? And how 
are you going to decide which of the above is which?

> 
>>From: Adam Beneschan <adam at irvine.com>
>>My problem with this is that, after reading Law 40B with care, I can't
>>imagine a case of MI that doesn't violate Law 40B.
> 
> 
> Going strictly by the text, you are right.  Yet there is a difference: 
> we see MI infractions often, CPU infractions almost never.  That's why 
> I've tried to tease out what the difference might be.  My suggestion is 
> based on some logic, I think, but no doubt there are other possibilities.
> 

Apart from deliberate cheating, I don't see what CPU's can be either. 
And even deliberate cheating will be dealt with by using L40C, plus 
some additional procedural penalty.

Of course we are not talking about illegal use of conventions here. We 
are simply talking about insufficient explanations.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date: 25/10/2006