[blml] L9A vs L73B1

Tue Mar 6 11:50:11 CET 2007

> Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Herman De Wael" 
> > 
> >>> 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? 

The ones who failed to alert. So why do let them
keep their good score just because the opponents
(NOS) went out of their way not to transmit UI?

> Surely it's the side that gave the original 
> MI? Their opponents tried clearing that up 

... by giving UI to partner. You are not allowed to do that.

> 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? 

Yes, I am and have always been. Check the BLML archives.
And I can hardly believe that you, who believe giving 
UI is almost the gravest possible offense, tell players to volutarily 
trasmit of UI in order to CYA.

Are you on your own 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. 

No, he wants to show his clubs. And by asking "shouldn't 1C
have been alerted, fellas?" he tells his partner "in case
you don't remember, 1S doesn't show spades in our system?"

> > 
> >> 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.

If you let me wake up my partner every time before I make
an artificial bid there will never be any evidence of
us not knowing our system, I assure you.

> 
> > 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. 

I have already replied to Sven about it. Does a player
know 100% that 1C should have been alerted or not?

If he knows 100% that any question would be solely
for the benefit of his partner, agreed?

And if he is not sure he has to assume that 1C shows
3+C. You are not allowed to transmit UI just
because you have a feeling that they committed 
an infraction.

> 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.

He's not as long as doing so transmits UI. A player is not
allowed to deliberately trasmit UI! 
73B1 says that.

Consider this analogy. My opponents bid
1NT - 3NT. No alerts so 1NT is supposed to be
15-17. I lead something, dummy tables 10 HCP. I hold
13 HCP myself. Partner wins the first trick with the
ace. Now I know that that the opening bidder 
doesn't hold a 15-17 hand. Am I allowed to "make doubly 
sure that opponents did not make an alert mistake"?
Even though this will tell my partner who may not
been paying attention that I hold significant
values myself? 

> 
> > 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. 

Exxxactly. Partner asking about a meaning of an alerted call
is nothing unusual. Partner suddenly expressing interest
in a natural, unalerted call is a flashing, warning sign.
What did he... ah, he's going to bid something according
to this weird defense we have! I got it!

> But why should he 
> be judged to be asleep? 

Yes, why is bidding Blackwood in ringing tones ("4NT?") considered
cofeehousing? If partner can always recognize 4NT
when 4NT is Blackwood ("why should he be judged to be asleep")
then one might as well bid in ringing tones.

> After all, it's his opponents who created this 
> opportunity for him to be "woken up". They have already proven they're 
> asleep!

Agree. So? 

> 
> > Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction.
> > 
> 
> Not alerting is also considered a very severe infraction.
> 

I have never said it is not. I only say that it is TD's job
to restore equity and give redress for infractions.
It is not a player's job. 

Strictly from practical standpoint it is much better for
the purity of the game if you simply educate players
"NEVER voluntarily transmit UI. NEVER EVER! Period." than
if you tell them "Basically you shouldn't voluntarily
transmit UI but in certain, justified cases, when
you think your opponents committed an infraction, and in your
judgment transmitting UI doesn't matter, then you might do 
it in a manner that..." 

Is anybody reading this or is it only me and Herman
left in this thread?

-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e