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

[Jerry Fusselman]

Continuing on my precis of the Kaplan Question topic from October 2002:


==================================================
13. David Burn:

You may ask questions. But you may ask questions only of a
certain type, and that type can be categorised by the word
"neutral". You may not ask questions that offend, or questions
that inform, or questions that deceive.

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

14. Eric Landau:

We're discussing unusual circumstances here, debating whether
they presumptively "legalize" an action that would be illegal
under typical circumstances. The laws of bridge do not lend
themselves to being reduced to simplistic, categorical rules (if
they did, BLML probably wouldn't exist), but ISTM that that is
what David is doing here. Consider...

> You may not ask questions that offend,

Of course you may. Humans are funny; one cannot be held
responsible for knowing what would offend someone else. You may
not, of course, ask a question that you expect will give
offense, or that a reasonable person would assume might give
offense (L74A2).

> or questions that inform,

Of course you may. You may not, of course, ask for the purpose of
communicating the information (L73B), and partner may not take
any possible advantage from information obtained by virtue of
your having asked (L73C).

> or questions that deceive.

Of course you may. You may not, of course, as Alain suggests, ask
for the purpose of deceiving or, indeed, for any purpose which
lacks a "demonstrable bridge reason" (L73F2).

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

15. David Burn

ogan at fas.harvard.edu (apologies for referring to you in this
somewhat impersonal fashion, but I'm afraid I don't know who
you are) wrote:

> I'm pretty new to serious bridge, but this situation has confused
> me since I started.  The idea that there can be something wrong
> with asking what opps' bidding has shown, no matter what I'm
> holding, could ever be wrong makes no sense to me.

I can understand that. It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws
that information possessed by the opponents should be available
in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, the
only ways in which this information can be made available to you
are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to
memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at the
table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical in
most situations.

But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also;
among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence
is illegal communication with partner.

Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they
will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices,
something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the
gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a
means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not
allowed to transmit information to partner by means of
questions.

Also, you are not allowed to deceive the opponents except by a
call or play (or, more strictly, if you do deceive your
opponents in such a manner, redress may be given them). Hence,
you are not allowed to deceive an opponent by means of questions
- whether you do so wittingly or not.

Because of these conflicts between rules, a compromise is
generally reached: you may do anything to obtain knowledge of
the enemy methods, provided that it does not: convey information
to partner; deceive an opponent; cause offence; unduly prolong
the game; or any one of a lot of other things that you're not
allowed to do.

Now, the opponents are supposed to respond fully and accurately
to questions properly phrased. If they conceal information from
you, as by giving wrong or incomplete answers to questions, then
they have offended and they are subject to penalty; moreover,
damage done you by their offence is redressed.

But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what
we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they
break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity
is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking
misleading questions. It is not.

> Is it "convoluted" or "ridiculous" to want to try to reconstruct
> declarer's hand based on all available information from the bidding?

No. But some information may, through no fault of your own, not
become available to you. It is an imperfect world, and as I have
said, there are principles in conflict here. If you do not have
enough information through your opponents' fault, and you are
damaged thereby, then you may seek and will usually be given
redress. But you may not seek further information except by
means of questions that do not communicate with partner and do
not deceive an opponent.

It really is every bit as simple as that, and I am getting a
bit weary of pointing this out. Whoever you are, ogan at fas, I
am glad that you are among us, but I fear that after a while,
you may find yourself echoing the words of the immortal Yogi
Berra: "It's deja vu all over again".

> I just don't understand the argument.

Then the chairmanship of the Laws Commission of any major country
is yours for the asking, provided that you can also show that
you don't understand several others.

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

16. Tim West-Meads:

> But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also;
> among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence
> is illegal communication with partner.

Somehow the word "prearranged" has gone missing from this
presumption.

If my opponents place me in a position where I cannot obtain
proper disclosure through a neutral question then I have to ask
a non-neutral one (or call a TD to the same effect).

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

17. David Burn

No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the
opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper
disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure and, if
you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. You do not
have to break the Laws regarding illegal communication, or
deception by means other than a call or play, just because you
think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding
disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less
than fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their
failure in no way excuses yours.

All he had to do, all he should have done, was ask his opponents
what their bidding meant. If they lied to him, and if he
misdefended in consequence, avenues for redress were wide open
to him. It's really got nothing to do with "justifiable bridge
reason", though in the current climate I can accept the argument
of a man who says: "The WBF expects me to protect myself, so I
had better make sure that I do so by asking any relevant
question." This is another one of those conflicts that I was
talking about when I responded to ogan's message, and one that I
confess I have not (because it would not have supported my
arguments) considered until now. Neither has anybody else, which
surprises me.

This is not, however, because I do not believe that the conflict
exists. It does, and I can understand players being wary of it
and being confused by it. The Laws create these conflicts and do
nothing to resolve them - that much is true, and that is why
there is something to discuss.

But the main point is this: you do not have to ask your opponents
any more than you need to know; and - however great your need to
know something, and however great your suspicion that the
opponents have not in fact told you the truth - you *may not*
ask your opponents anything that might fool them or tell partner
anything that he did not know before you asked. If the opponents
do not tell you what they know and you might need to know, when
they should have told you, then they have misinformed you; the
penalties and liability for score adjustment arising from
misinformation are well understood.

What Wally says above is what Herman and Alain and others have
said before. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the duties
of players and the functions of the Laws. Your duty at the table
is never to "squeeze an explanation" out of your opponents. If
they don't give you a full and accurate explanation when you ask
at your proper turn, by means of properly constituted questions,
for an explanation, then you may claim redress for any ensuing
damage. What you may never do is ask improperly constituted
questions.

But the plain and simple fact is this: no matter what your
provocation, you must not break the rules. If your properly
asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your
remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage
done. You do not have the option of asking improper questions
just because the proper ones don't seem to be working. And if
you damage your own side's interests by asking such questions,
you must suffer the consequences.


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

18. Tim West-Meads:

> No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the opponents
> place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then
> you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged
> thereby, you obtain redress.

Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of
self-protection - as you pointed out. The combination of
self-protection and not being allowed to ask does seem likely to
reward improper disclosure

> You do not have to break the Laws regarding
> illegal communication,

In the absence of screens even "correct" questions (or looking at
a CC) can make UI available to partner - that doesn't make such
questions (or looking) illegal. The "Kaplan" question was
rendered illegal by Lille 98 - a fact I have acknowledged
several times, while pointing out that I believe their decision
to be flawed and unnecessary.

> or deception by means other than a call or play,

Opponent's draw inferences *at their own risk*. If, by improper
disclosure, they create a situation where they are likely to
draw incorrect inferences from necessary questions they increase
those risks substantially.

> just because you think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding
> disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less than
> fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their failure in
> no way excuses yours.

I may ask any questions necessary to achieve disclosure (L20F1).
If these questions create UI for partner then L16 may apply -
that's just something we have to live with.

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

19. Eric Landau:

But a player holding the queen of hearts (leaving aside for the moment
the fact that the actual question at issue was about the queen of
*trump* in an RKC auction where it may not have been clear what the
opponents thought the presumed trump suit was) *doesn't* presumptively
know the answer to "Does it deny the queen of hearts?" or the even
better, more neutral, "Does it say anything about the queen of
hearts?", and David would disallow the latter as well.

> Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they
> will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices,
> something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest
> possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means
> of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed
> to transmit information to partner by means of questions.

Come on, David.  "The gravest possible offense" is *intentional*
illegal communication with partner.  But that's not been at all
an issue in this thread.

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

20. David Burn:

Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent
is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do;
what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone
who meant to do wrong.

> What we're talking about here is the everyday garden variety
> of "illegal communication", which isn't really illegal at all

Of course it is. Law 73B1 says:

Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls
or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through
questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts
and explanations given or not given to them.

Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms
of illegal communication which are not "the gravest possible
offence", that does not mean that there are some forms of illegal
communication that are not an offence at all. So serious are
such offences that *anything* which follows as a consequence
of *any* communication between partners other than by calls or
plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed.

I would indeed not allow anyone to ask any question at all
containing the words "queen of hearts". The only questions I
would allow anyone to ask are of these forms:

Format 1
[words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation of..." followed
by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in
a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call);

Format 2
The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation of" replaced
by "some more information about".

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

21. Richard Hills:

David Burn wrote:

>>You are not supposed to transmit unauthorised
>>information, just as you are not supposed to steal.

[snip]

Not so.  Because the Laws wrote:

>inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
>call or play is made does not in itself constitute a
>violation of propriety

Therefore, transmission of UI is not necessarily
comparable to stealing.

>>The only questions I would allow anyone to ask
>>are of these forms:
>>
>>
>>Format 1
>>[words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation
>>of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the
>>auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context
>>where it is permitted to ask about a specific
>>call);
>>
>>Format 2
>>The same as Format 1, with the words "an
>>explanation of" replaced by "some more
>>information about".
>>
>>David Burn
>>London, England

The Laws permit a third format; L20F1 states:

>questions may be asked about

[snip]

>relevant calls available but not made

That is, the Laws themselves rule that non-generic
questions are in some circumstances legal.


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

22. Richard H:

Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial
discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction
commenced:

LHO      Pard     RHO
1NT(1)   Pass     Pass(2)

(1) Weak
(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted

The next player took over-optimistic action, and
was carted out for a big penalty.

The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to
protect their side, as they had not asked a
question about RHO's Pass.