[blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 01/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> RH :
> >
> > Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating
> > Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the
> > RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial
> > calls which are misbid.
>
> The problem might be solved simply by treating a misbid exactly as a psyche.
> >
> >
> AG:
>
> I think it's more general than that.
> Authorities, including TDs, are responsible for ensuring smoothness of
> bridge play, and convention disruption is, er, disruptive.
> Disallowing some behavior that spoils pleasure wuthout helping in any
> aspect is within the scope of their authority.
>
> SR:
>
> Yes. Working out "how" is tricky though.
>
> AG:
>
>  L75C, however, is general enough to cover this case.
> Adding "provided he remembered the system", with the underlying
> knowledge that "it happened before",  comes within range of "knowledge
> of partner".
>
> SR:
>
> Yes, and of course this should be disclosed, illegal EBU regulations
> notwithstanding. But currently it is not disclosed, and I can't imagine how
> players can be educated. And as I have mentioned in another post, the NOS
> may not be able to protect themselves even after this disclosure.
>

If this is really true we have stumbled across a brilliant new two way
convention that is near impossible to defend against.

However I doubt this and this Ghestem problem I believe is just a
storm in a teacup.

The real problem if there is one is that directors do not rigorously
enforce MI and UI infractions against the misbidders.

MI when in fact an implicit agreement has been created and UI when a
bid has been explained or misexplained.

In a similar situation I was once dumbfounded when my opponents bid as follows:

(1D*) 2NT** (Pass) 3C
(Pass) 3H ...

* Symmetric - 2 or 3 suited unbalanced no five-card major (not
necessarily diamonds)

** explained as both minors but the actual holding was both majors

The 2NT bidder had 5=5=1=2 and would have had an easy pass or raise of
3C but chose instead to try and correct the misinformation by bidding
3H.

Amazingly the director and appeal committee allowed this blatant use
of UI.  Coincidentally the director was in a personal relationship
with one of the opponents.

While there are directors and committees willing to allow this blatant
use of UI we will continue to have problems.  As soon as directors
disallow this blatant use of UI and resolve doubtful points in favour
of the non-offenders then the majority of the problems will go away.
Occasionally there will be a rub of the green situation where a misbid
produces an unexpected windfall but these will be far out numbered by
the -1100s.

I want my opponents to make mistakes so let them use Ghestem and the
like but punish them appropriately when they use UI to wriggle out of
their problems.

Wayne