[blml] Cheater's paradise? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Andre Steffens:

>North has:
>63
>765
>A942
>Q974
>
>
>AQJ87
>K
>KQ7
>AKJ5
>
>Bidding goes (South dealer):
>2C-2H
>2S-3NT
>
>North thought to show 3-6 points with 2H and a maximum with 3NT. So
>let's assume that use of UI is absent.
>
>However, South stated that NS had recently changed their system, 2H
>now showing a good suit. So he did not alert the 2H bid. Their
>convention card confirms this. North however keeps firm in that 2H
>shows points only.
>
>East has AQxxx of hearts and now doesn't lead the suit. Result
>3NT+1, while with the lead of a small heart NS would have made 9
>tricks (the king of spades was off side).
>
>I am not particularly interested in how to adjust, but about how to
>establish if there has been an infraction:
>Question 1:
>Misbid or misinformation?

Richard Hills:

The De Wael School TD, going by North's bidding and firm statement,
would rule misinformation.  The Sven Pran School TD, going by the
writing on the system card, would rule misbid.  But the Richard
Hills School TD, who is normally closer to the Sven Pran School TD
than he is to the De Wael School TD, would ask a further question:
which member of the partnership is the Keymaster?

If I discover that South is the Keymaster, the one who writes up the
key conventions on the system card and the key agreements in the
system notes, then I may well rule that South's latest key amendment
to the system on page 53 of the system notes and on page 3 of the
system card is not a _mutual_ partnership agreement since North has
not yet read about South's particular Keymaster change.

Andre Steffens:

>Question 2 :
>If misbid how to deal with Law 75D2 first paragraph vs 75D2 example
>2?
>"After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity
>(after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play
>ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the
>opponents that, IN HIS OPINION, his partner's explanation was
>erroneous."
>But: (in the case of misbid) "South must not correct North's
>explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no
>responsibility to do so subsequently"
>-So: North should have called the director, failure to do so is an
>infraction and we can adjust even if we rule misbid?
>-Or: there was a misbid, so North did not have to call the TD, even
>though IN HER OPINION South had misexplained? No harm done: score
>stands?

Richard Hills:

The footnote to Law 75D2 is meant to clarify Law 75D2.  A close
reading of example 2 in the footnote suggests that "in his opinion"
should be construed as "in his _current_ opinion".

Example 2: South responded to 1NT with 2D, intending it as a signoff
in diamonds (this was written before transfers became popular). North
described 2D as Forcing Stayman (this example was also written when
double-barrelled Stayman was popular).  And once North gave the
correct explanation of 2D as Forcing Stayman, South realised that she
had misbid and North had correctly explained the partnership
agreement.  Therefore, because South's _current_ opinion was that the
explanation of 2D as Forcing Stayman was not erroneous, South had no
responsibility to say anything immediately or subsequently.

In Andre Steffen's case North has a _continuing_ firm belief that she
has not misbid, so therefore North does have a Law 75D2 obligation to
correct South's failure to alert.  As Andre implies with his next
question, it seems that North was unaware of Law 75D2.  But ignorance
of the Law is no excuse.

Andre Steffens:

>Question3:
>This situation seems to advantage both the player who doesn't know
>Law 75D2 and the cunning player who will state that he erred even if
>he knows that partner misexplained, while the honest, knowledgeable
>player will cause to find his opps the killing lead.
>
>How do you solve this?

Richard Hills:

In this particular case I suspect that I would rule misinformation,
not misbid.  And even if I ruled misbid, I would rule that the
actual honest North (who continued to have a firm system disagreement
with South) had involuntarily infracted the "in his [current] opinion"
clause of Law 75D2, which would result in me (as TD) assigning the
same adjusted score of 3NT making 9 tricks only.

As for "the cunning player who will state that he erred even if he
knows that partner misexplained", this is nothing new.  But such
cheating is easy to solve, if the political will is there.

Due to the statistical nature of bridge, cheats are quickly noticed
by their peers for getting good results in unusual ways.  Cheats
therefore attract an evil reputation long before the actual cheating
mechanism they use is formally unveiled by an investigation of their
local Conduct and Ethics Committee.  And then the cheats get a 5-year
"holiday" from playing in bridge events.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, mentor
National Training Branch
(02) 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.
DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.
The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department’s
website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm