[blml] Online Bridge

[Steve Willner]

>>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.

SW>You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or
SW>passes).

> From: Herman De Wael <herman at hdw.be>
> 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.

There are frequent cases where a player is not allowed to choose what he 
considers the optimum bid.  Examples include having UI, or being unable 
to double after an IB, or at the extreme, being barred on account of 
some infraction.  This is just another example.

In the example case, figure out what North would do if 1NT is illegal. 
Probably with 10 points he would pass; with 12, he might open 1m or 
something.  Then you figure out what happens after that.  This may not 
be easy -- I did write earlier that illegal opening bids will be 
difficult -- but it's just a case of bridge judgment for the TD (and 
maybe AC).  If the illegal call is not an opening bid, the judgment will 
typically be a lot easier.  The basic point is to apply L12C2.

> 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.

L12A1 and then 12C2 seem perfectly clear.  L40C is a different matter.

> Which is what I am doing : applying L40C. The way we've been doing it 
> since times immemorial.

Certainly L40C rulings are far more common than L40B ones, but I can't 
believe L40B is in the book if it is never supposed to apply.  We can 
(and I would like to) discuss exactly when 40B should apply, but I don't 
think there's any doubt what to do when it's violated.

> I see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between CPU and MI.

I can, but my version (or rather, the version I've read about) may not 
be correct.  The logical occasion (to me) is when improper disclosure 
deprives the opponents an opportunity to agree on methods.  That was why 
I suggested applying 40B for failures of required _advance_ disclosure. 
  My example above may not be a good one -- I wanted to keep things 
simple -- but imagine an SO where mini-NT is rare.  So they create a 
rule that if you use mini, you have to tell the opponents at the start 
of the round, and the opponents can agree on a special defense.  (I am 
not saying such a rule is wise, but it's conceivable.)  If NS fail to 
follow this rule, EW who play, say DONT against everyone else's strong 
NT are deprived of a potential penalty double.  A mere MI adjustment 
could be inadequate to protect them.

A more practical example in the ACBL would be a pair who play multi but 
fail to provide the required written defenses.  Even if they alert the 
2D bid and explain it fully, opponents who have no agreements over multi 
are helpless.  How do you propose to protect them?  (Assume multi is 
legal in the event; it's only the disclosure that's at fault.)  And of 
course we have the actual example of the Polish pair who failed to file 
CCs in advance.

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the 
> bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly 
> disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would 
> render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs).

If you make it "could have known...likely," I don't think this is so far 
from my view.  I certainly agree that a missing alert or some such is 
ordinary MI, not a L40B infraction.  Pending further discussion, I would 
rule L40B against players who fail to provide advance disclosure even if 
they  genuinely didn't realize it was required.  Take a typical foreign 
pair who show up for an ACBL event, open their multi as always, and had 
no idea they were supposed to provide any special printout.  I feel 
sorry for them, but don't we have to protect their opponents?