[blml] De Whale

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> At 10:59 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote:
> 
>> Eric Landau wrote:
>>> At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case
>>>> is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder
>>>> has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that
>>>> sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is
>>>> no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the
>>>> same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and
>>>> there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are
>>>> you going to believe them when they say "no agreement".
>>> The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that
>>> even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H,
>>> they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which
>>> means that always believing them and never believing them are equally
>>> fallacious.  In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from
>>> the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if
>>> they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from
>>> Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time).  In 
>> effect,
>>> having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself.  In Tim's
>>> world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players 
>> have
>>> to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they 
>> claimed,
>>> and rule accordingly; that's their job.
>> Eric,
>>
>> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one
>> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he
>> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? No, that is a case that I
>> don't believe will come up.
> 
> Yes, I do.  Because "a true 50/50 toss of the coin" here means that if 
> asked the meaning of the call, either answer -- natural or splinter -- 
> in isolation, would be correct 50% of the time.  But he will put all 
> his eggs in one basket because he expects partner to be "on the same 
> wavelength", i.e. that partner will also understand that the nature of 
> their actual agreement is a true 50/50 toss of the coin.  That will 
> induce partner to "guess" whether 4H is natural or a splinter *based on 
> the number of hearts he holds* (possibly combined with other clues from 
> the auction).  That he will be able to do this successfully well over 
> 50% of the time doesn't change the "50/50" nature of the agreement -- 
> but may well make putting all his eggs in one basket the best way to 
> maximize his expected result.
> 

You have used words like "expects partner to be on the same 
wavelength", "clues from the auction", "maximise his expected result". 
I fail to see how this is consistent with true 50/50 tosses. I am not 
criticizing your understanding of the law, but I do wish you'd try and 
take real-life examples and not hypothetical ones. No-one jumps to 4H 
in a situation where there are still 2 (50/50) possibilities as wide 
apart as a singleton or a 7-card suit. If they do, you would be right. 
But they don't, not in a 50/50 case. And even if it's only 60/40, I'd 
expect the opponents to be informed of which is the 60% chance.

And that just is my point. If 2 players end up on the same wavelength, 
how likely is it that it was a true 50/50, and how likely is it that 
there was some framwork that they both related to? What is the TD most 
likely to be doing? And do you really want to have your players hide 
behgind "it was a true 50/50 toss of the coin, this". Well, I don't, 
and they will have a hard time convincing me that it really was 50/50. 
And I guess you'd be equally hard to convince, or you're no good director.

And all this leads me to give as advice to players: if you have even 
an inkling of which one it is - better tell your opponents this, 
because if you turn out to have it correct, chances are the TD will 
rule against you if you don't say it.

Call that bad advice if you want - but don't call it bad law. It's not 
law, just advice.

Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks 
what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while 
meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")?

I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..."

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