[blml] L9A vs L73B1

[Herman De Wael]

Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
> 
>>> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted
>>> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals)
>>> would wake up a dead man.
>>>
>> No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders.
> 
> No - *you* are. By refusing to give NOS redress
> when they followed the law to the letter.
> While you are letting the OS keep their score when
> *they* broke the law.
> 

Ehm, who is the OS here? Surely it's the side that gave the original 
MI? Their opponents tried clearing that up rather than get a bad score 
and having to ask the TD to help out.

>> I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed,
>> when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of
>> meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong
> 
> Please provide a number of the law that allows to knowingly transmit UI to 
> partner.
> No "feels wrong", please. Law number.
> 

I'm really confused. Are you on my side in the DeWael School debate? 
In that one, everyone seems to believe it is worse to give MI to 
opponents than UI to partner. Yet here you are thinking the worst 
crime is to give UI to partner. When the UI is not even UI at all, but 
information he is entitled to. The player who asks if something should 
have been alerted is of course just showing intrest in the bid. But is 
that valuable UI? Let's first judge the content of the I before we 
rule against the UI, ok?

>> in such case not to
>> impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about
>> the asking of the system.
>>
>> After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite
>> often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S
>> overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't
>> ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to
>> them to have the misunderstanding.
> 
> No, it is not - L73B1 prohibits them to ask if doing so would create
> UI.
> 

Indeed, IF!
Here we have a player who is going to show his spades regardless of 
the answer. The fact that he's interested is obvious from the moment 
he later shows his spades (surely his partner also knows that with a 
different reply, he would have shown his spades in some other manner).

> 
>> I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that
>> in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not
>> knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was
>> more distracted.
> 
> Of course they will claim that there was no question of knowing
> the system. Everybody claims that afterwards. That why do we see
> all those tranzillion of "Ghestem strikes back" threads, huh?
> 

But in all those cases you see some evidence of them not knowing their 
system - there is no evidence of that here.

> Seeing someone forget artificial agreement of the first round of
> bidding is quite common - don't let anybody tell this doesn't
> happen at high level. In the Polish First Division where I play
> I rembember seeing a few disasters like that (usually involving transfers)
> this season only. Or even if the partnership _is_ on the
> same wavelength the uncertainty about it affects their
> bidding.
> 

OK, but that is not the problem here. This player did not forget his 
system, he realizes that he has 2 ways of showing his spade suit. In 
order to choose the correct one, he needs to know opponents' system. 
So he asks. He's entitled to know it, he asks it. He's allowed to do 
so. And he's allowed to make doubly sure that opponents did not make 
an alert mistake.

> The vast majority of those cases are not sensu stricto "forgets" -
> it is not the player forgets that he agreed. He remembers very
> well but simply "the hand was faster". Lapses of concentration after a few
> hours of playing.
> All those Ghestem cases are also of that very kind. The player
> simply automatically raises 3C to 5C. If you asked him
> away from the table he would tell you 3C was Ghestem
> but at the table he instinctively raises to 5C.
> In the case we are discussing it is a legitimate possibility that playing 
> with screens
> North would raise 1S to 3S for the same reason (even
> if 1C were alerted by his own screenmate).
> Usually 10 seconds later the player fully realizes what he has done.
> It is thus *enormous* help (at every level) to receive an extra reminder
> before partner makes an artificial bid.
> 

Look at what you're saying: even if 1C were alerted, partner might get 
it wrong. So why should he not get it wrong if 1C is alerted after a 
question? OK, maybe he will be slightly more awake. But why should he 
be judged to be asleep? After all, it's his opponents who created this 
opportunity for him to be "woken up". They have already proven they're 
asleep!

> Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction.
> 

Not alerting is also considered a very severe infraction.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be