[blml] Asking for wrong answers (was GK&E) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Ed Reppert:

>The folks around here, though, generally don't know what they're
>doing, don't have a clue what the alert rules are, and stumble over
>explanations:
>
>
>"Um, I think I was supposed to alert that."
>
>Opponent, having already called: "okay, what's it mean?"
>
>"Um, I'm not sure. I think it's <insert name of convention here.>."
>
>"Okay, but what does it show?"
>
>"It's  <name of convention>."
>
>"So it shows <whatever>?"
>
>"Um, yeah."
>
>Later it turns out they play a non-standard version of the
>convention, and while the bid in question does show what the
>opponent suggested (yeah, I know, don't lead the witness), that's
>not a complete explanation, and the hand actually held falls into
>the area the explainer forgot to mention.
>
>Okay, not twenty minutes, but a lot longer than it should have
>taken, and still nothing like full disclosure. And it happens over
>and over again.

Richard Hills:

Both the ACBL and the ABF Alert regs state that it is not sufficient
to merely answer <name of convention> in response to a question.  So
I would argue that it is not the fault of clueless folks, but rather
the fault of the ACBL in failing to publicise and enforce its regs.

Anyway, poor explanations by bunnies rarely cause damage to expert
opponents.  If +1100 is a top, but a correct bunny explanation would
give the expert +1400 for the same top, then what's the problem?

And if an expert frequently plays against the same bunnies (as I do
at the Canberra and South Canberra bridge clubs), the expert will
often remember the bunnies' system better than they do themselves,
so the expert will not need to ask questions.

Which raises an interesting point.  If a Charlie the Chimp expert is
confident that he can guess the opponents' methods, but the Chimp
does not actually _know_ the opponents' methods, is it legal for the
Chimp to ask a question of an apparently confused opponent?

The Chimp's object is to cause an opponent to create UI constraining
their partner and/or create MI confusing the Chimp's partner, thus
giving the Chimp a double shot at either a good table score or a
good adjusted score.

The WBF has ruled that questions may not be asked for partner's
_benefit_, but one of the Chimp's objects in asking the question is
to cause his partner's _detriment_ by arranging for his partner to
get some MI from an opponent.

:-(


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