[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[Konrad Ciborowski]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Obviously this is the prime duty


> In a message dated 17/10/2007 22:26:01 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm
> writes:
>
>>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.
>
> Then there is no problem if we are in England, as I will have already 
> called
> the director because you do not both have identical complete convention
> cards, and forced you to play simple system with no conventions. In 
> practice, of
> course, I do not treat our Polish visitors in this way, and the ones I 
> have
> met  do not give the type of answer you do. I do not know either what the
> sanction is  in Poland for not having two complete convention cards.

Even if people play a simple system there will be numerous auctions
when people will have no idea if their partner's bid is forcing or not, or 
whether
is shows 4 or 5 cards, about their partner's strength and so on and son.
Remember - we are not talking about high level bridge here
(because high level bridge is played almost exclusively with
screens). We are talking about club level or popular tournaments
where about 75% of pairs don't even have agreements about first
round auctions - they don't know if a double raise by advancer
(or sometimes even responder) is invitational or pre-emptive,
they don't know if they play Drury as advancer, even if they
do they do they still don't know what version, they don't know
if they play "system on" after the 1NT opening is doubled and so forth.
They can hardly play bridge at all. And their slam zone
auctions are usually completely random so almost every
time you ask you get "4C is probably a cue-bid though
it may a a fragment bid, or perhaps it shows shortness, I don't
really know, we haven't discussed it" so very often you
end up defending blind.
If I were to call the TD every time my opponent is not
able to explain his partner's bid to my satisfaction I would
be calling him every three rounds or so.

>
> Taken to an extreme, all bids could have an almost infinite number of
> explanations, where the two players do not even have the time to decide 
> whether
> they are playing Polish Club, Precision, 5-card majors etc etc. This is up 
> to
> the SO to sort out and decide that the players are forced to play a simple
> system or complete a full card.

And how exactly does the fact that the SO may ammend the MS by adding
more regulations make the dWs illegal?

>
> And it is irrelevant whether you prefer your opponent to be a "dWS
> responder". The world and his dog have decided that this approach is not 
> the  correct
> one.


Come on. Even the ancient Greeks knew the fallacy of the argumentum ad 
populum.


Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rusz pupe na wybory!
Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc