[blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my...

[Herman De Wael]

richard willey wrote:
> The following was posted on the BBO forums:
> 
> http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=21014&st=0
> 
> "Some years ago, the national appeal committee created the legal
> practice that if someone makes a natural 3C jump overcall and his p
> alerts and explains it as "Ghestem" (or vise versa) it is always
> treated as misinformation rather than misbid, in other words, even if
> there is evidence that it is in fact a misbid, it is an infraction.
> This practice has, in the meantime, been extended to other frequently
> abused conventions such as Landy and DONT, and the position of the AC
> seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always
> infractions, at least in the first round. In IMP (Dutch bridge
> magazine for advanced players), Onno Eskes has several times argued
> strongly against this practice. In the Aug/Sept issue of the magazine,
> Roald Ramer defends the position of the AC, while Hans van Staveren
> (until recently member of the Dutch law committee), Ton Kooijman
> (chairman of the WBF law committee) as well as the Belgian bridge law
> expert Herman de Wael attack the AC's position vigorously. Hans van
> Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch TDs to action against the AC and
> mentioned (in a talk with Grattan Endicot at the open Europeans in
> Antalya) the possibility of TD strike (!).
> 
> In the september issue of the BF magazine "Bridge", Berry Westra
> defends the AC's position. He argues that the right to misbid is from
> a time when psyches were common while conventions were not. He thinks
> that there is a need to protect the game against the growing
> convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte").
> 

I can agree with one part of this - if a pair fail to have a correct 
"control" over their system, the opponents should be told about it 
("systemically, that shows XX, but we've just started playing this and 
partner migh mistakenly think it's still ZZ").

I cannot agree with the way this was handled in the case that sparked 
the controversy.

In that case, a player from a high-level team, in a fixed partnership, 
made a misbid. This was behind screens, and even before the tray 
returned, he told his screen-mate both the correct information and the 
fact that he had misbid. He was East or West, so his screen-mate North 
or South never received any misinformation. And still the TD and AC 
ruled against this player, based on the dutch precedent that a misbid 
is always misinformation.

I can well understand that not all the dutch are very happy with that 
interpretation.

> The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further
> notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get
> the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be
> updated) so that misbids become infractions."
> 
> I was curious whether anyone might be willing to comment on this
> posting (either here or on BBO).
> 

I think it will prove very difficult to distinguish between misbids 
and judgment issues. If my NT is classed as 15-17, am I not allowed to 
open on 14? Am I not allowed to miscount? What if I decide to describe 
my NT range as 14-18? Am I not allowed to open 1S on 14 any more? Must 
I describe my methods so completely (and stick to it) that any 
computer can play the game? Sorry, but I do not believe this is feasible!


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html