[blml] The reall issue of "no agreement"

[Robert Frick]

Hi Eric. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I will try to address your  
issue of practicality.

As you note, it is not practical for the bidder to always explain the  
meaning of his bids in face to face bridge, with partner always leaving  
the table ("the distractive nature of a playing area that resembles a  
jack-in-the-box convention.....").

What if the "rule" was this? If you know (are reasonably certain about)  
the meaning of your partner's bid, you tell the opps if they ask. If you  
are uncertain about the meaning of partner's bid, you leave the table and  
let partner explain. This doesn't happen very often, right? Today our  
partnership was formed a few minutes after game time and I didn't need to  
jump up once.

(Of lesser importance, you mention the UI transmitted by the decision  
whether or not to leave to leave the table. This UI seems to be extremely  
minor compared to the UI of an incorrect explanation, or even the UI of a  
correct explanation, or even the UI of "no agreement".)

Bob


On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> Online -- at least when I played but I think everywhere -- the players
>> self-alert and tell opps the intended meaning of their bid. (BIM = the
>> opps learn the Bidder's Intended Meaning).
>>
>> This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would
>> (usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has
>> developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's
>> explanation of
>> the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the
>> bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning).
>
> The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is
> neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding
> (APU).  BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may
> be used in an attempt to communicate the APU.  Regardless of which is
> used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI
> infraction.
>
> It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally
> likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either
> disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI.  So we
> choose between BIM and PUM based on the likelikhood and difficulty of
> the problems that may arise from their "side effects".  It makes
> sense that these considerations will be quite different in on-line
> and F2F bridge, and their respective authorities have made opposite
> choices.  There is a very strong case to be made that the F2F game
> would be better off using "BIM disclosure" rather than "PUM
> disclosure" if a suitable mechanism could be found.
>
>> I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight
>> against
>> BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive
>> influence
>> is players experiencing BIM and liking it.
>
> Herman has made strong and compelling arguments that have convinced a
> serious and thoughtful minority of BLMLers of the far more radical
> notion that the BIM should replace the APU as the information to
> which the opponents are legally entitled.  That would, of course,
> fundamentally change the way we play and rule the game worldwide
> today.  Nevertheless, it is an interesting and intriguing
> proposition, and not without considerable merit.
>
> I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to
> replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need
> to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of
> BIM disclosure.
>
> The "corrosive heresy" that Herman stands accused of peddling is that
> it is legal and proper for an individual player or TD, in serious
> duplicate bridge competition sanctioned under the current laws,
> universal practice to the contrary notwithstanding, to act as if BIM
> entitlement were already the law.  It is this which produces the
> "DWS", a horror-movie scenario of "BIM entitlement meets PUM
> disclosure".
>
>> The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the
>> bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for
>> any
>> miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the
>> partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of
>> their
>> bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can
>> recover,
>> fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the
>> meaning of all of their bids.
>>
>> So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge
>> capture
>> these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws
>> to fit
>> this plan?
>
> Easy peasy.  Eliminate alerts, require a full review and explanantion
> (in its current form) at the end of every auction, allow opponents to
> ask questions at will, but require partner of the bidder to leave the
> table and the bidder to respond every time.  This eliminates the
> problems caused by partner leaving selectively, which result from the
> possibility that he might unwittingly offer an incorrect explanation
> of BIM, and from the UI transmitted by his decision whether or not to
> leave to leave the table.  It is the equivalent of the on-line BIM
> disclousre procedure.  Its obvious drawbacks are the distractive
> nature of a playing area that resembles a jack-in-the-box convention,
> and the likelihood that 26 boards in under four hours will become a
> thing of the past.
>
> We will not be able to discuss these issues intelligently unless we
> maintain a clear distinction between "BIM disclosure" (a relatively
> modest change to current practice) and "BIM entitement" (a
> fundamental and radical one).
>
>>
>
> Eric Landau
> 1107 Dale Drive
> Silver Spring MD 20910
> ehaa at starpower.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml