[blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding?

[David Burn]

[HdW]

In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few weeks, I
have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means we have to
discuss something far more important than the DWS.

I have come up with the following hand - but I've only constructed the
distribution. High cards and points should be filled in to correspond to the
story further on.

We are playing a tournament with 100 tables and this is the hand:
(S/NS)
	-
	x
	xxxxxx
	xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx	x
x		xxxxx
xxx		xxx
-		xxxx
	xxx
	xxxxxx
	x
	xxx

At every table South opens 1He and at 80 tables, West overcalls 4Sp.

Now consider North's actions:

At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT for the minors. He bids that,
South bids 5Cl. West passes, hoping that NS are too high, but they're not.
+600.

At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT Blackwood here. So he cannot
bid that. He doubles, 4Sx-2, +300

At 20 tables, North is uncertain of the meaning of 4NT in their system, and
he doesn't dare bid it. He doubles, +300.

At the last 20 tables, North is also uncertain, but he bids it anyway.

At ten tables, South guesses correctly, bids 5Cl, and scores +600.

At the other ten tables, South thinks 4NT is Blackwood, and he bids 5Di. Now
let's look at those tables in more detail:

At all of them, West wants to know what is going on. He asks South what 4NT
is and gets the response "Blackwood". That should be enough for him, because
he now "knows" that there is heart fit. He is not going to wait for North to
bid slam or not, and he wants to bid 5Sp immediately.

But wait, first he wonders about the 5Di bid.

At table one, they are playing with screens (*). West is seated with South,
and he asks South about the meaning of 5Di. "One Ace" writes South. West
bids 5Sp; North doubles, 3 down, +500.

At table two, West realizes that it doesn't matter to him how many aces are
in South. 5Sp, +500.

At table three, West remembers that his opponents use simple Blackwood. +500

At table four, West consults the SC. +500.

At table five, West asks North about 5Di. HDW is sitting North, he replies
"one ace", West bids 5Sp, +500.

At table six, West also asks North, but here it's Sven sitting North. He
replies "diamond preference". West now thinks "maybe they're playing in
their weaker minor" (he has three himself). He doubles. 5DX-3, -800.

At table seven, Jerry is sitting West. He knows that to ask can work to his
advantage. He asks, someone answers (MS fashion), and Jerry doubles. -800.

At table eight, David Burn is sitting North. He doesn't even wait for the
question but reveals the mistake immediately. West doubles, and David plays
5DiX, by David only two down, -500.

Now the TD arrives at all tables, but only at five of them he is really
needed. West makes clear that he would not have bid 5Sp if he hadn't been
misinformed (about the probable heart fit). The TD turns back the score to
...

Yes, to what?

I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that
West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus
believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to
pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300.

And then my point is of course that I see no reason why Sven should suffer
-800, when he would "get away" with -300 at tables 1-4, where no question is
asked. Also I don't see what's so terribly wrong with my actions, since I
also suffer the same fate as the tables 1-4.

[DALB]

No, you don't. At the table where you were North, you were plus 500 against
five spades doubled. And you would have remained plus 500 against five
spades doubled unless East-West worked out that they needed to call the
Director.

Now, I am sure that you personally would have called the Director yourself
as North, because you know the rules and you are an ethical player. But very
many Norths who "play the dWS" are not even aware that they are doing so -
they are just doing their best (foolishly, but in all innocence and good
faith) to explain what South has, instead of what South's bids mean. They
would be positively affronted at the notion that they had done any wrong at
all, and it would be very hard to convince them that they should be minus
300 in five diamonds instead of plus 500 against five spades doubled.
Moreover, very many East-Wests would not actually have known that there was
a problem - they might have felt dimly that something was amiss, but they
would not have understood that the Director needed calling. 

That is what really is wrong with the dWS, and why it really is bad for
bridge. If all concerned know the rules and their rights under them, and the
Director is a competent one (such as HdW or Sven Pran), then equity will
probably be restored. But in the real world, this simply does not happen in
the vast majority of cases. In the real world, MS players will go down in
five diamonds (doubled or not) while dWS players will get 500 from five
spades doubled. You may say that this is no more than their due, because
they have exercised their right to break one law rather than another. But I
say (with Eric) that they are obtaining an unfair advantage by choosing to
break the law most likely to improve their results.

I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted a case
that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for some time.
The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat - I know
you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for the game
in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the bargain. But the
dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution.

David Burn
London, England