[blml] Online Bridge

[Herman De Wael]

Steve Willner wrote:
>>>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.
> 

But it is a totally crazy example. In cases like UI, there is either a 
logical alternative, or there is not. So you can give the hand to a 
player and ask him what he would do. If he gives you 2 possibilities, 
then you have your alternative bid. But in the case we are discussing, 
you will give the hand (a balanced 16 count, say) and he will come up 
with only one answer. "No, you're not allowed to bid 1NT", you say. 
"are we playing 15-17?" "yes, but you're still not allowed to open 
1NT". "Go away", he'll say. There is simply no other bid possible, so 
how are you going to give an AS? The only alternatives is an ArtAS, 
and that is precisely what I said you would be giving, and where you 
were angry that I said you were scrapping the board.

> 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.
> 

Which is exactly what I'm applying, after the use of L40C.
In fact what all this boils down to, is how to interpret L40C and 
L12C. "had the irregularity not occurred". Wez are merely discussing 
what the irregularity is. Nothing tells us that it is what I believe 
it is, except the fact that all directors have been doing this for all 
these years.
I believe it is the fact of non-disclosure. You believe the 
irregularity is the use of the convention in the first place. OK, 
maybe you are right in principle, but lots of directors have been 
doing the opposite for a long time. Why change that into a system in 
which you create two extra problems for yourself:
- deciding when to rule CPU and when MI;
- deciding how to find an AS after a pair have used their own 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.
> 
> 
> 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 think we apply L40B all the time. We cannot do otherwise, since L75 
will not tell us what to do, only L40C does - and that necessitates a 
breach of L40B. So, all cases of MI come through L40B. Why would you 
need to have L40B creating two different infractions?

> 
>>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. 

I agree, but I don't believe you need 2 different infractions for 
that. I want to give an example, but I see that you do as well:

>   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.
> 

No it does not. L40C tells the TD to award an AS if he believes 
opponents are damaged - and they are. So you award an AS based on the 
bids as they have happened, combined with some sensible defensive 
methods for NOS.
In your example, I could imagine giving NOS 1NTX minus whatever.

> 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.
> 

In the Multi case, it is quite possible to award some AS based on NOS 
having good methods.
The Polish case was a mistake, so we don't need to go there.

> 
>>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?
> 

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