[blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC)

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Geller" <geller at nifty.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC)


> The point is that because of the failure of the offending side to 
> pre-inform
> the non-offending side, they were denied the opportunity to prepare
> and confirm their defense to the convention, and therefore adjustment
> is warranted, as they were unfairly placed in a disadvantageous position
> through no fault of their own.
>

This would be the point of the 2VP penalty (with much heavier penalties 
thereafter), but would not address issues of damage.

>
> Adam Beneschan writes:
>>
>>Bob Geller wrote:
>>
>>[regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an
>>unbeatable grand slam]
>>> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you 
>>> describe
>>> (the slam convention).  It's hard to imagine any way it could have been
>>> deemed to damage the oppts.
>>


I think that more investigation would be warranted.  Suppose the opponents 
had no method to reach the unbeatable grand slam except their unannounced 
convention.  Do you still think the NOS was not damaged by its use?


>>> OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT)
>>> and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S 
>>> opening
>>> in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was 
>>> listed
>>> on the oppts convention card.  Further suppose that you and your partner 
>>> don't
>>> get to your cold  6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the 
>>> oppts
>>> not thrown a curve at you.
>>>
>>> The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered.

Agreed.

>>IMHO, the "real" violation here is the failure to properly inform you
>>of this convention according to the SO regulations.
...
>>
>>However, the precise wording of Law 40B seems to make the 1S bid
>>itself the irregularity, so technically perhaps it's correct to assign
>>damage based on how the auction would have gone after three passes
>>("had the irregularity not occurred": Law 12C2).
>>

No, I don't think we can adjust to three passes, nor do I think that the CoC 
were particularly well-written in this regard.  One could argue that there 
is no way to get a real bridge score once the illegal convention had been 
used, so an artificial adjusted score should be applied (16.B.3 Extraneous 
information from other sources).  When this occurred to me I wasn't happy 
with it, but I'm not so sure. Wouldn't information from an illegal 
convention be UI? It's a bit more abstract than the extraneous sources of UI 
cited in 16.B, but what else can you call it?  UI from partner doesn't seem 
to apply when both partners are playing the system (there may be no LA's to 
choose from, but the system is still a violation).  And I also think it's a 
stretch to call information from a system specifically prohibited by the CoC 
"AI", so what's left? Actually, this seems to cover the ground better than 
the actual CoC.  Use a prohibited or undisclosed convention, and get the 
board thrown out, an artificial adjusted score, a 2VP penalty and all kinds 
of mayhem should it happen again. Why worry about attempting to define 
damage to the opponents?  The TD can decide that the UI made the board 
unplayable. That feels about right.

I'm reasonably sure that there are holes in my logic, and await rebuttal.

Hirsch