[blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2)

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 3/7/07, in the thread "[blml] L9A vs L73B1", Richard wrote:

>
> For newbies to blml, an exploration of the October 2002 thread
> "the Kaplan question" in the blml archives might be enlightening.
>
> See:
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html
>


Here is a precis of that thread for other newbies like me. After
the long double line below, all of the sentences are from the
October 2002 thread. I found that it was easy to arrange the
posts as if they were in a conversation.

I am surprised to see that I left out much of Herman's writing,
but that is probably because I find his position the most
persuasive. Instead, I made sure to include mostly David Burn's
words, for that is supposed to be what the newbies should focus
on to learn the error we are making about 1C in the thread "L9A
vs L73B1."

==============================================

1. David Burn:

If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in
which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also
positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to
rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions
either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent.

You're supposed to ask your opponents to explain their methods,
not tell them what you think their methods are and see if they
agree with you.

> In the case I talk of, with the Belgian AC, the fellow asking
> the question told me he did not realize he had the queen when
> he asked about her.

He should not have been asking about the queen of trumps. He
should have been asking what 5H meant; when he was told, he
should have accepted the explanation he was given; and if his
side was damaged because the explanation was incorrect, he
should have sought redress.

Now, I know that in the real world, people don't do this. They
ask all sorts of improper questions, they are given (and accept)
a lot of partial or wrong explanations, because they do not
treat every situation at the bridge table with a high degree of
formality. And no more they should, of course; not every event
is a World Championship, and most of the time, a less than
strictly legal approach will do no harm and will contribute to a
more enjoyable game.

But if you ask the wrong question, it is no defence to claim that
you then asked another wrong question because you thought you
might have been given the wrong answer to the first wrong
question. And you must be extremely careful not to ask questions
(or do anything else) that might imply anything about the
contents of your hand.

Just because your opponents may be doing wrong, that does not
give you licence to do wrong yourself.

==============================================

2. David Burn:

When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question
was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should
not benefit from that either.


==============================================

3. Eric Landau:

To set the record straight, in the case reported in the Bulletin
it was clear that the original question was *not* "wrongly put".
The original "question" was in fact a request for a full review
of the auction accompanied by explanations of the calls. In the
ACBL, that has been officially stated to be the "most preferred"
form of inquiry at the end of the auction.

==============================================

4. Herman:

Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly
put, it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the
answer, because he knew his opponent (he was from the same
club). The answer "two" surprised him. So he inquired further
"of five?".

==============================================

5. David Burn:

Oh, well. Presumably, then, there were three questions, one of
which was the not entirely correct "what is 5H?" and the other
two the innocuous "of five?" and the entirely illegal and
misleading "does it deny the queen of trumps?"

>Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender.

I am ruling against a player who broke Law 75 and perpetrated an
illegal deception. If the question arose: did North-South cause
damage by their inadequate explanations? then I would consider a
score adjustment if the answer proved to be "Yes". If the
question arose: should North-South be penalised for errors in
procedure by giving inadequate explanations? then I would
consider so doing if the nature of the event and the experience
of North-South made this appropriate.

In other words: North-South have committed an infraction. I do
not know whether this resulted in damage to be redressed, or
whether it would be considered serious enough to result in a
procedural penalty; but if this turned out to be the case, I
would rule against North-South in both respects.

East-West have also committed an infraction. This certainly
resulted in damage to be redressed, and was certainly serious
enough to warrant an additional procedural penalty. I will
therefore also rule against East-West in both respects. If this
leads to an adjustment in which North-South fail in their slam
while East-West have it made against them, and both sides are
then fined several victory points for abuse of procedure,
splendid. That, after all, is what they deserve.

Where more than one side has offended, one rules against more
than one set of offenders; they are both the "right" offenders
against whom to rule and neither is the "wrong" offender. But
one does not say: "Well, these offences seem to have cancelled
one another out, so we will rule against no one."

I think, though, that provided the facts regarding the question
as to the queen of trumps were as reported in the original
message to BLML, I am unlikely to be persuaded from my original
view that it was a question that should not have been asked, and
that if it deceived an opponent, redress was due.

==============================================

6. David Burn

Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly.

You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions
must conform to a prescribed format, must not amount to
harassment, and above all must never be asked either for the
purpose of communicating with partner or of deceiving an
opponent.

==============================================

7. Eric Landau:

Once again, David asserts the unarguable but irrelevant.

The opponents have a long auction to a slam, which includes a
4NT-5H sequence. Now if E had merely said, "Did 5H show the
queen of trump?" we would (at least almost) all agree that that
would violate L73E. But he didn't; he asked for a full review
with explanations. That *was* "behav[ing] correctly" and
"conform[ing] to [the] prescribed format". When the information
about the queen of trumps was not forthcoming, he continued to
"conform to [the] prescribed format" by asking about it
specifically with a follow-up question, which got him the answer
he was legally entitled to on the basis of his original request.

=============================================

8. David Burn

If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question
could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived
an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may
be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not*
mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by
your side.

=============================================

9. Eric Landau:

That is a good, logical argument, but is not responsive to
Herman's. Because it rests on a fundamental premise with which
all (or at least most) of us agree: "it is [not] OK to commit an
infraction of your own to avoid damage from an infraction by an
opponent".

The argument isn't over whether it's OK for E to commit an
infraction; it's over whether what E did should be considered an
infraction. David B. (along with David S. and Norman) obviously
believe that it should (L73E); Herman (along with Mr. Gerard and
the AC that heard the actual case) believe that it should not
(L20F).

IMHO, the jury is still out, although so far I'm finding Herman's
argument more convincing. One side offers examples which at
least suggest that the holder of the trump queen may have a
genuine need to know what his opponents' actual agreement is;
the other side merely asserts that this cannot be so.


=============================================

10. David Burn

I assert only that I do not consider anything an "example" of
what might constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason" unless the
so-called example consists of, at a minimum, a 13-card hand and
an auction. And I am frankly a little surprised that Eric considers
what he has received so far to be anything resembling an example
of when one might legitimately want to know that the opponents
thought they had the queen of trumps, knowing oneself that they
did not.

Both sides have so far done nothing but make assertions. But
when one side asserts that X exists, and the other side that
X does not, it is irrational (as well as impractical) for the
second side to have prove its case by showing that everything
in the world is not-X.

However, thanks to Roger's kindness, I have been able to read
the original article, which has proved yet another confirming
instance of one of my hypotheses. If there is a proposition p
such that: p has to do with the rules of bridge, and Ron Gerard
believes p, then p is false.

=============================================

11.  You know who:

>
> So the question at issue remains whether a player
> holding the queen of  trump who asks about it can be
> presumed to be doing so "for the purpose of communicating
> with partner or of deceiving an opponent".   Which in
> turn depends on whether it is possible that he might have
> a valid  "bridge reason" for obtaining the answer.
>
+=+ If the Director is summoned and protest made that
the question was deceptive and caused protester to draw
an incorrect inference the player who asked the question
will be required to show that he did indeed have a
bridge reason for asking it. There does not have to be any
presumption - a set of circumstances exists in which if it
becomes an issue the player may be required to show
that he had a valid bridge reason for the question.
       The point that seems to have been little stressed
in this correspondence is that defender has asked a
question that is capable of misleading declarer. If in
fact declarer is misled, the defender is required to
show that he had good reason in bridge terms to ask
the question which he knew could mislead. If he has
no demonstrable bridge reason for his action in
asking the question then the Director is required, say
again 'required', to adjust the score under Law 73F2.
      Law 73F2 stands upon three legs: that the action
could work to the player's benefit, that the player
could know this was the case, and that having done it
he is unable to show that he had a bridge reason for
doing it. Aside from this there is a further question
arising in parallel under Law 73D2: was the action an
attempt to mislead?
      On another tack the player's question may convey
UI to partner; if this is the case Law 73C applies and
Law 16A.             ~ Grattan ~     +=+

=============================================

12. Eric Landau:

This is the most sensible thing that has been written in this thread
since I raised what I thought was a side-issue of "two aces" and that
nasty queen of trumps.  Let's see if it can settle the original question.

We can stipulate the following:
(a) Defender's question was capable of misleading declarer.
(b) Declarer was in fact misled.
(c) The action could work to the player's benefit ("on balance" is
required here, but met).
(d) The player could know that this ((a) and (c)) was the case.
(e) The action was not an attempt to mislead.

We are reduced to "the player who asked the question will be required
to show that he did indeed have a bridge reason for asking it".

When I wrote the reply to David B. cited above, I replied to the
assertion that the question was ipso facto illegal by saying
that it "depends on whether it is possible that he might have a
valid 'bridge reason' for obtaining the answer". Grattan and I
are in total agreement.

So what have we learned from all this?

I think we've actually achieved some consensus, albeit not an
overwhelming one. We have rejected the AC's reasoning (at least
as Mr. Gerard reported it): we do not believe that the mere fact
that the information was withheld in reply to the original,
correctly formulated line of questioning, by itself, is
sufficient to establish a valid bridge reason for asking for it.
We shall never know whether justice was done, because it would
appear that the key question was never asked. We perforce reject
even more forefully Mr. Gerard's "new view" opinion; he would
actually encourage *always* asking under the circumstances (with
or without the queen, of course).

And we've all picked up some practical advice: if you find
yourself in the situation faced by that lady in Washington and
you really want to know what five hearts said about the queen of
trump, you'd better know who's going to be on the appeals
committee.

If it's David B., David S. and Norman, you'd better keep your
mouth shut.

If it's Ron Gerard and the folks on the Washington committee,
feel free to ask away.

If it's Grattan, Alain, Herman and me, be prepared to convince us
that you had a legitimate reason for wanting to know the answer.

And, to make it all complete, we may actually have learned
something about (gasp!) the subject of the thread. For if we do
indeed agree that the mere fact of information withheld doesn't
justify asking a question without a valid bridge reason for
wanting to get the answer, that settles Mr. Kaplan's hash, does
it not?

It's been a very nice discussion, folks, and I thank you all.