[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[Konrad Ciborowski]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty


> In a message dated 17/10/2007 17:35:19 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm
> writes:
>
>>The opponents have no right to know that you are in the
>>middle  of a misunderstanding.
>
> I didn't say they did. But they do have the right to get the correct
> explanation of your methods from each player.

Yes, they have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75A.
And they also have the right to expect their opponents to obey L75D2
("must not in any manner").

They cannot obey both - because of the nature of the no-screens bridge
they must break one or the other.
If a player faces such a choice why shouldn't be he free to choose
which one he is going to break?
In either case breaking the law will not go unpunished.

> Therefore if one player gives a  wrong
> explanation (which he is not allowed to give deliberately), then his  or 
> her
> partner must still give the correct explanation of your methods when he 
> or she
> is asked.

He must also avoid indicating "in any manner" that a misunderstanding
occurred.
So he can't do both so - see above.

> If that is inconsistent, the opponents will know that a
> misunderstanding has occurred.
>
>

As for your remark that dWs makes it easier to cheat -
it is quite the opposite. Traditional school makes life
far easier for cheaters.

I'll get back to that - for now let's forget
cheating.


Let's consider the following scenario, a very typical one.
showing why as a player I very much prefer (by a mile!)
to face opponents who follow dWS. It is easier
to play against them than against players
who believe in traditonal school (that doesn't make
the traditional school illegal).

Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner.
Me and my partner know each other quite well but we are not a regular 
partnership
and didn't have much time before the tournament to
discuss our system.

Your partner opens 1H and my partner overcalls 1NT.
Now in Poland there are two schools - about one half
treats the 1NT overcall as natural, the other half
plays it as a two-suiter with 4S and 5+m.

Your partner asks me for an explanation.

Let's say I am a believer in the traditional school.
Then, in order to comply with full disclosure, I'll have to say
this:

"In Poland, where I play, there are two schools - about one half of the
players treats the 1NT overcall as natural, the other half
plays it as a two-suiter with 4S and 5+m. We are not
a regular partnership so I have a guess to make. My partner
has two other regular partners, with one of them he plays
it natural, I don't know how he plays it with another.
On the other hand my partner knows that I normally
play the 1NT overcall as showing 4S-5+m.
It is true that we agreed to play simple bridge
today but this convention is so popular in my country
that I really don't know if this keep-it-simple rule
applies here".

Your partner listens to all that and bids 2S.
Now you have a choice to make -
is 2S a natural bid showing a weak hand with
long spades (as over the natural 1NT overcall)
or is it a cue-bid showing a hand with
a heart fit (as you would play over the 1NT
overcall showing spades)?

Let's say that you pass 2S judging that in the
light of the explanation 1NT
is probably natural so 2S is weak.
It turns out that partner bid 2S as a cue-bid because he
judged the 4-5 option was more probable.
You end up in 2S on a 3-2 fit while 6H
is laydown.
Now of course you will not get any redress
from the TD - there is no law that says that
a pair must know the meaning of any bid.
You have been given the fullest, the most
detailed and the most honest explanation
of the 1NT bid. All partnership understanding
has been revealed including all implicit agreements
that might be relevant for you. Everything.
So there has been no infraction, no redress.
And you end up with egg on your face
and a cold bottom on your scorecard.

Now what if I am a follower of the dWs?
I will simply tell you "1NT shows 4S and 5+m".
Now if I get it right then you and your partner will
certainly be on the same wavelength when it comes
to the interpretation of the 2S bid. On the other
hand if I guess wrong then this time the ruling
will surely go in your favor - this time the TD will have
no doubt that you _were_ misinformed so you will
get the best probable score.

That's why I very much prefer playing against
opponents who tell me "this means X" instead
of people who tell me stories like "it could be X or
Y, I said I don't like X but I don't know
if my veto is in force for this event."
because in the second case they make _me
and partner_ guess what our subsequent bids
will mean. They make us pay for their own lack
of preparation. In the "this means X" case the TD
will adjust (if it turns to by Y and not X) but
in the second one - well, they have fully
disclosed their agreements or rather the fact
that they don't have them. Full disclosure - no
infraction.



Back to villains and downright cheating - traditional
school makes it possible to give murky, fuzzy explanations.
full of "or's" and "perhap's" in cases where a player
is pretty sure what his partner's bid means.
And this kind of cheating is very, very hard to detect.
Let's say that I am a cheat and I am pretty sure
my partner's 1NT is natural - let's say 95% sure
knowing my partner's preferences. I can still give
you the long explanation above and how
are you going to catch me? The TD won't
help you. How is he to know that the story
above is not exactly true?


On the other hand the dWs is simple - if I say
X and it is Y then it will become obvious
for everyone after the hand is over.
The TD will have a case of clear MI
so the dWs pair never benefits.


Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaros³aw Drob, Przyjdziemy i Spie***ymy - poznaj kandydata!
Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bef