[blml] De Whale

[Eric Landau]

At 02:51 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote:

>Eric Landau wrote:
>
> > 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.

They don't?  You sit down to play with a brand new partner.  You know 
that in your area, where the "standard" system is 2/1 GF, roughly half 
the players play 1S-P-4H as to play, the other half play it as a 
splinter.  You pick up -/KQ10xxxxxxx/x/xx, and hear 1S-P-?  Your call?

I'd guess that at least 99 out of 100 experts in a bidding contest 
would happily call 4H (and probably comment "WTP?").  They will expect 
partner to (a) understand that they have not agreed on the meaning of 
4H, which is a priori roughly 50/50 to be natural or splinter, (b) look 
at their own heart holding, (c) notice that the opponents are not 
bidding as though they have the big heart fit they would have to have 
if partner were splintering, (d) figure out that 4H must therefore be 
based on long hearts, and thus (e) pass.  One has to wonder what Herman 
("no-one jumps to 4H in [this] situation") would choose to call if not 4H.

>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.

Of course it wasn't "really" 50/50 *when the call was made* just 
because it was 50/50 a priori.  What changes the a priori odds are the 
cards one actually holds and the auction one actually hears.  This 
happens on every deal.

Partner opens a Precision 1C, promising 16+ HCP.  I hold 22 HCP.  By 
Herman's logic, I must describe partner's 1C opening as showing 16-18 
HCP, otherwise I am guilty of "misinforming" my opponents by telling 
them that partner could hold 19 HCP or more (I'm guessing that's 
roughly a 50/50 proposition before I look at my hand, although I 
haven't calculated the odds) when I know that there is no possibility 
of that being true.

>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 ..."

So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is 
presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously 
tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to 
interpret his subsequent responses.  That sounds like deliberate and 
egregious generation of UI.  It is *precisely* the practice of adding 
"most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it 
as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and 
for the most part successfully) to stamp out.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607