[blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws

[Matthias Berghaus]

Hello Herman,

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
>>
>> MS:
>> Advantages  - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the 
>> TD handle the rest
>>     
>
> Well, actually, this is not true. We are always talking about one type 
> of cases, but there is a second and a third type.
>   

That is not what I actually meant, even though I agree with most of what 
you write below. At the moment (if the player does it correctly, but 
that applies always) the player just has to explain the system. That is 
fairly easy to do, even if the consequences may get a bit complicated - 
for the TD.

> The first type is the one we are always talking of. A player makes a 
> call, and his partner misexplains.
>   

May I point out (without making a judgement about it) that a player has 
to use UI to apply the dWs? That is a clear infraction (even if the 
intentions are honest).

> The second type is totally uninteresting, since both sides of the 
> debate will give the same explanation: this is the case where a player 
> misbids, and realizes that he has misbid when he hears his partner 
> give a (correct) explanation. In this case the player needs to bid on 
> as if he had the correct system all along, and he should explain his 
> partners bids in the way partner intended them (dWs) or  in the way 
> the system goes (MS), which is the same explanation.
>   

I disagree (on two counts): It is not uninteresting, and what the player 
has to do depends on whether he misbid (knowing what the system is, but 
miscounting steps or whatever), or whether he forgot what the system is 
and is woken up by partner. Looks like two different cases to me. In the 
first variation the UI only focuses on one bid, in the second variation 
he has to bid on according to his first view what the system is, which 
may or may not make a difference.

> But there is a third type of case. This occurs when the player hears 
> an explanation which does not confirm to what he thought the system 
> was, but now he is uncertain what the real system is. He cannot ask to 
> see the CC, or call the TD, for fear of breaking L75D2. So, under the 
> MS, he has a huge problem: does he continue with partner's 
> explanation, which might be MI, or does he tell his own version, which 
> is certainly UI and might also be MI?
> OTOH, the dWS really is simple: just explain his bid in the way he 
> obviously intended it, even if that might be MI.
>   

That looks good on paper, and could certainly work with players who 
understand and follow their responsibilities, but that is a very small 
minority, isn`t it? Most people do not understand what the laws ask them 
to do. The majority would probably do what is proper (and some may not, 
if they can get away with it), if only they understood what that is. The 
percentage of would-be-cheats would be small (I hope), but the drawback 
( I agree with the advantages you list, to be sure) is that _it does not 
show_! You have UI (partner does not understand the bid the way I 
intended), you have to use that UI to recover, if you can recover the 
opps will never know, so your use of UI will not be questioned. Very 
dangerous ground.
The current laws make it very difficult to cheat if the TD is competent, 
and that is the way I would like it to remain. Do not tempt human 
beings. They may be better than we sometimes think, but they are worse 
than we want them to be, being only human. In most cases infractions are 
based on ignorance or oversight, the very small rest we can handle with 
disciplinary penalties, but giving them license to do something like 
that and have them  expect to get away with it is something I advise 
very strongly indeed. What works with Herman at the table (who knows the 
laws, being a TD and all that) does not necessarily have to work with 
Mrs Guggenheim or Mr Smug, for whatever reason.

One more type of case: Some bidding without someone asking, now partner 
does something which cannot be right according to system (wrong number 
of aces, fourth step in a yes/no situation, that sort of thing) and you 
know a wheel has come off. What now?

>   
>>                     - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) 
>> system and the hand
>>
>>     
>
> I don't think there can be any problems about spotting the cases. 
> After all, the previous bid has been misexplained, and this is bound 
> to come accross. So I don't think this is an advantage.
>   

Well, see above. I think that is a marked advantage. The dWs may be well 
and good with players who are all ethical ( I know some who are not, and 
I am sure so do you. We can hope, but we shouldn`t put our faith in 
inside straights...) and knowledgable (fat chance below a certain 
level), but the percentage is way too low for my comfort. I think there 
is no sense in making rules for the ideal player.


< snipped >

>> Disadvantages - More cheating potential? I have not really digested this 
>> aspect yet, but it seems to me that a lot of abuse can be done, 
>> especially in the lower echelons of (opponent`s) bridge ability.You
>>                          cannot cheat a good plaer twice with abuse of 
>> dWs, but in the clubs?
>>     
>
> This is one I have never before considered. I don't think we are 
> talking about cheats here. 

I hope not, but then hope springs eternal. See above. Better make it 
watertight. Even if the player is honest, there may be room for doubt, 
and then you have to rule against him anyway, because what he did (in 
all innocence) was what a cheat would do..... So in order to protect him 
from being called a cheat behind his back we have to rule against him. 
See current L72B1 and others.

> Of course a player who explains partners 
> bids consistently might more easily claim misbid afterwards, whereas a 
> player who explains conforming his own system can no longer do so. But 
> does that open the way to cheats? I don't think so, since the cheat is 
> the one that will claim his partner geve the correct explanation. 

Or the one who catches his partner`s "misbids" because partner tells him 
so. There are lots of ways. This is even true of the current laws, but I 
fear dWs would make it more... shall we say flexible? This will not work 
on higher levels where people pick such things up pretty fast, but 
further down? I am not so sure. Maybe I am a bit paranoid, but not being 
paranoid is no guarantee that they are not out to get you....

> If 
> he does, he is bound to follow the advice of both schools, which are 
> giving the same explanation (see above). So if the MS wins the debate, 
> a cheat will still act in the same manner, while a dWs adept might 
> cheat in a different way: he could still explain according to former 
> explanation and then claim that partner had convinced him that his was 
> the correct explanation. He will accept that the TD does not rule 
> misbid, but he cannot be blamed for explaining the way he did, since 
> he was not able to consult the CC and see who was right.
>   

The problem I see lies in not having to explain anything. Explanation 
matched the hand, no questions asked, next board. In MS the explanation 
does _not_ match the hand, so questions will be asked. My fear is that 
those hands will not arouse the tinest suspicion, so it will work once 
more. In fact, the longer I think about it the cheating potential turns 
out to be my major grievance with the whole idea. If the AC found cause 
to throw a pair out of a championship not long ago, who can say what 
would happen at the club level where a few cheats can hide among lots of 
people who simply don`t know enough of the laws to get it right, and 
lots of people who do not know enough about bridge to catch them out?

>   
>>                        - More difficult to follow. What should I tell 
>> opps if I can see that partner has not replied to RKCB, but I have no 
>> idea what he has done? If I guesss wrong the UI impact is no smaller 
>> than in
>>                          MS
>>
>>     
>
> Usually in cases like this the meaning of partner's next call is clear 
> from his explanation of the previous one. Many cases never get to the 
> dilemma stage because the opponents don't have to ask. If 4NT is 
> explained as for minors, it is clear what 5Di means. 

And if the UI is used and the situation is not cleared up? I may sound 
somewhat repetitive, but I have serious doubts about that. What if 5D is 
passed or raised and the 4NT hand makes the explanation somewhat plausible?

> Very 
> occasionally, a partner will explain a bid according to a system that 
> the bidder has never played before. But I think this is so very 
> occasional that we don't really need to worry about it. Just explain 
> what you think it means and if you're wrong, well, then at least your 
> partner will think you have forgotten, but not that he has 
> misinterpreted the previous bid.
>   

In which case there is UI both ways, which is no better than the current 
situation.

>
> Well, I have explained the dWS to many players, and they don't seem to 
> have problems with it. It sounds strange at first, but if you tell 
> them: "well, you know you should not shout at imbecile partner, so 
> playing along with him should not be so difficult, should it?", they 
> usually understand.
>
> The dWS advice is very simple:
>
> whenever your partner has explained your bid in a different manner 
> than how you intended it, you should:
> a) interpret his bids and select your calls according to what you 
> thought the system was;
> b) explain his calls at the table according to what he apparently 
> thought the system was;
> c) call the TD and explain everything at the first legal opportunity - 
> before the opening lead if your declaring side, after the board if 
> you're defending.
>   

If I look at the number of players who can not remember (or be bothered 
with) when they have to clear up some MI declaring/defending..... Maybe 
your experiences have made you less pessimistic than me.

Tell you what,Herman: I have to leave now (and may or may not be back 
today). How about listing all possible cases (forgotten system, misbid, 
MI) in relation to when the questions started (so more or less the cases 
we listed above, and any we didn`t come up with yet), followed by an 
analysis about UI, MI, possible cheating, probable ruling under both 
schools? Maybe you can get started. I suspect I will not be back before 
tomorrow afternoon. Maybe someone else takes it up here, too.

Regards
Matthias