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

[Wayne Burrows]

On 15/03/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Nigel Guthrie:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Hence, you may suffer damage from LHO's failure to alert. You
> >may call the director *now or later*. If *now* then that is
> >to all intents and purposes the same as asking the dreaded
> >"Kaplan Question". If *later*, you may be denied redress by
> >even dafter "fail to protect yourself" legislation.
> >
> >Richard is probably champing at the bit to contradict me
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> No, on this specific issue I am champing at the bit to agree
> with Nigel.  I agree that "fail to protect yourself", as it was
> interpreted by at least one daft ACBL AC, rewards an offending
> side for giving non-trivial MI.
>
> Fortunately this ridiculously excessive interpretation of "fail
> to protect yourself" did not apply in Australia during the
> previous century.  A team-mate was in 3NT, and LHO led a deuce.
> My team-mate looked at the opponents' system card, which
> described their leads as "fourth best".  So my team-mate did not
> think it was necessary to hold up their ace until the third
> round.  RHO later gained the lead, returned LHO's suit, and LHO
> cashed four winners, having actually led fifth best.  At first
> my team-mate thought he had been got by a false card, but then
> he discovered that the opponents only played "fourth best"
> against suit contracts, but instead played "attitude" against
> notrump contracts.
>
> The TD adjusted the score, and the opponents appealed on the
> grounds that my team-mate had failed to "protect himself" by
> eschewing the standard play of holding up.  The Aussie AC's
> view (in direct contradiction to the view of the previously
> quoted daft ACBL AC) was that if MI significantly contributed
> to a careless error by the non-offending side, then the
> offending side should not be rewarded for the MI on spurious
> "protect yourself" grounds.
>

Unfortunately this position has not migrated into the 21st century.
At the recent Gold Coast Congress in Queensland, Australia when my
opponents incorrectly checked "underlead" on their convention card.
All of the director, the chief director and the appeal committee let
the table score stand when I was mislead by this incorrect marking on
the convention card saying that I had misinformed myself.  Thus
rewarding my opponents, the offending side, by giving them a score
that it was not possible for them to obtain without the misinformation
that they provided on their convention card.

To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal
committee is completely unworkable.  I cannot comprehend how directors
and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them
scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate
information.

Wayne