[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Nigel Guthrie:

>>I have to do enough guessing in the bidding and play, to
>>forgo the thrill of random results caused by opponents not
>>knowing and refusing to divulge their methods.

Ed Reppert:

>You sure you're not really Bobby Wolf? :-)
>
>Who said anything about "refusing to divulge" anyway? Besides
>you, I mean?

Richard Hills:

In times gone past "refusing to divulge" was indeed very
commonplace.

In Mike Lawrence's old book "Play Bridge with Mike Lawrence" he
noted that one unethical opponent refused to divulge his
methods by pretending that he only understood Spanish (which
put monolingual Mike at a disadvantage).

:-(

It is possible that the 2007 version of Law 40 might somewhat
strengthen the current 1997 strictures against a player who
frequently refuses to fully divulge their partnership's
understandings.

Nigel Guthrie:

>>Forcing players to guess when they claim they don't know
>>would simplify the law and make prevarication harder.

Ed Reppert:

>Forcing this player to guess when he doesn't know will cause
>him to quit the game.

Richard Hills:

It is possible that Ed Reppert (and myself) will not have to
quit the game before 2017 at the earliest.  See the debate
below exhumed from the blml archives.

John Probst (23rd November 2006)

>>>>You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? I find it
>>>>one of the most difficult points of Law to interpret. "Thou
>>>>SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou SHALST NOT correct MI" (in
>>>>certain circumstances) and "Thou MAYST create UI"  (but
>>>>partner has to be ultra careful). The words of the Law I
>>>>understand, but what was the intention of the LawMaker -
>>>>and "How do we play Bridge?" ?

Grattan Endicott (24th November 2006):

>>>+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that
>>>neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's
>>>explanation that there is a misunderstanding between them.
>>>Each should continue bidding and explaining his partner's
>>>calls on the basis of his own understanding (on which he has
>>>based his earlier calls). Only when the bidding is
>>>unmistakably unhinged can he learn from that of the problem.
>>>
>>>But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an
>>>instruction or guidance to players that they should explain
>>>according to system correctly, but continue to call on the
>>>basis of their own understanding. I was wondering how
>>>loosely worded that might be on the subject of gaining
>>>awareness. It worried me that it might be in the 1992
>>>Commentary, but what it says there is "He must carefully
>>>avoid making use of that unauthorized information and must
>>>not base any action upon it. He can act upon knowledge which
>>>he obtains unmistakably from the subsequent bidding or
>>>play."  So it appears my mind has remained unreasonably
>>>consistent upon the subject.  Damage to opponents through an
>>>incorrect explanation is to be redressed by score
>>>adjustment.
>>>
>>>Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. I do not even
>>>know at this juncture whether they will (or can) resolve the
>>>question. They are still in malleable condition.
>>>                                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm