[blml] Online Bridge

[Herman De Wael]

Steve Willner wrote:
> SW>Who said anything about scrapping the board?  What a ridiculous idea.
> 
> 
>>From: Herman De Wael <herman at hdw.be>
>>You did, by saying that the board should be scored 40/40.
> 
> 
> Herman
> 
> This is not like you.  It is not nice to make up stories about what 
> other people have said (or written in this case).  I never wrote 
> anything of the sort, and I don't see how anything I did write can be 
> misunderstood as suggesting any such thing.
> 

Please Steve, accept my apologies if I have misrepresented you; See below.

> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> And this is false as well.  I think the Laws require giving adjusted 
> scores in both cases, but they will in general be _different_ adjusted 
> scores.  (Of course in some specific case they might lead to the same 
> result.)
> 

OK Steve, I accept that this is your position. I do not believe any 
adjustment for CPU (your interpretation) can be given that is not an 
ArtAS (see below) which is why I talk of "scrapping the board". Please 
accept that this was meant as a shortcut. I am very interested in 
seeing how you can be giving AS for CPU. Again, see below.

> Please take a little more care.
> 
> SW> Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but
> SW>through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17.  If...
> SW> we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North
> SW> did not open with the illegal 1NT bid.
> 
> 
>>But what would you do if you say that NS do not open 1NT? Isn't that 
>>the same as "scrapping the board"?
> 
> 
> Not at all, though some SO's may (illegally in my view) mandate that. 

I am pleased that you see this as being illegal.

> You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or 
> passes).  The "something else" may not fit the NS system; if not, too 
> bad for them.  Let them give proper disclosure next time.
> 

And this is where I believe you are wrong. You cannot impose on a pair 
that is playing one system a bid which is not in that system. OK, the 
law is worded very strangely: "you are not allowed to use methods that 
the opponents don't know", but that same law does not tell the TD what 
to do if they do use such methods. Or wait, look again: yes it does : 
L40C.

> If this is what you meant by "scrapping the board," then I apologize and 
> ask you to write more clearly.
> 
> Of course applying L12C2 may not be easy when the illegal call is an 
> opening bid, but that's nothing unusual for BLML.  If the illegal call 
> comes later in the auction, there's less of a problem.  No matter how 
> hard a particular case might be, I don't see why one should refuse to 
> apply the laws as written.
> 

Which is what I am doing : applying L40C. The way we've been doing it 
since times immemorial. Maybe the laws are badly written, but that 
does not mean we should start doing something else than that which all 
TD's have been doing all the time.

> 
>> Nowhere in L40B is there mention of any way for the 
>>TD to deal with the infraction.
> 
> 
> Come on, Herman, you know better than that.  Apply L12A1, then L12C2, 
> just as you do in any other case where there's an infraction with no 
> specified penalty.  The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the 
> improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal.  You know as well as I do 
> what that implies when you get to L12C2.
> 

No I don't. If a call is illegal, how can I use L12C2 (or L12C3, on my 
side of the pond) ? I cannot imagine what "would have happened" is the 
call had not been made, since the pair have no other system available. 
The only thing I can then do is apply L12C1. Which is where we came 
in, by me calling that "scrapping the board".

> As Herman notes, we still have the question no one can answer: which 
> types of improper disclosure violate L40B.  I've given my suggestion 
> (which I think may have come from EK -- anyway, I doubt it's original), 
> but I don't think the answer is clear.
> 

I see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between CPU and MI. 
In both cases (your distinction, not mine), the pair have been using a 
convention that the opponents did not know about.

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