[blml] nashville 12

[Adam Wildavsky]

On Aug 1, 2007 10:06 AM, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote:
>
> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> >>
> >> This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of
> >> the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and
> >> the rest of the Committee.
> >>
> >> If West had been told by South the actual North-
> >> South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D
> >> showed hearts - then West would not have been
> >> told by South the misinformation that 2D showed
> >> diamonds.
> >
> > i think it's only a slight inaccuracy in the wording. ac's intent may
> > have been to say that west was entitled to know the actual
> > agreement and
> > that he happened to have accidentally got AI about what south
> > thought of
> > 2D. what your are entitled doesn't restrict what else you have got
> > without any fault of your own.
>
> For that intent to be consistent with the law, the committee would
> have had to find that West could "have accidentally got AI about what
> South thought of 2D" even "had the irregularity not occurred".

Sorry to take such a long time to reply, Eric and Richard! I do not
read every message posted to the list and I only just came across
yours.

The case and comments are now posted here:

  http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Nashville2007/NABC+12.pdf

I would hate to think that our ruling was illegal. Here's one way to
reconcile matters. South's initial misexplanation was MI. But he had
several opportunities to give a correct explanation. In effect by not
doing so he provided MI more than once. Suppose before West decided
whether to pass the double he again asked about the meaning of 2d.
South would have again said it was natural. We know this because if he
thought otherwise he was obligated to correct his earlier explanation,
with or without a second question from West.

If we don't interpret the law this way how are we to interpret it?
Should "Had the irregularity not occurred" mean had South bid 2D
intending it as natural but explained it, correctly, as showing
hearts? That seems nonsensical.

If you don't buy the second question argument then suppose EW have a
complete and well-indexed set of the NS system notes. West would still
ask South about 2D, since he has the right to do so and it's more
expeditious than looking up the sequence in the notes. The auction
would have proceeded as it did through the double of 2H, but at that
point West could look up the sequence in the notes. He would have
learned of the NS bidding misunderstanding and had an easy pass. I
think of the irregularity not simply as South's initial
misexplanation, but of NS's failure to inform their opponents of their
agreement through any legal means.

If none of my arguments seem compelling consider that a NS pair
committed to full disclosure could put this agreement on their
convention card. Not many would, and I can't say I blame them, but we
should be careful not to disadvantage a pair that provides written
documentation of their methods over one that does not.

-- 
Adam Wildavsky  <adam at tameware.com>  www.tameware.com