[blml] A strory with a conclusion

Tue Jan 8 17:58:44 CET 2008

Konrad Ciborowski schrieb:
>     It is a long story but I tried to keep
> it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took
> your time and read it. I know how it sounds
> ("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going
> to entertain you with my poems...") but
> if you have nothing better to do then
> you might as well read it.
>
>
>   

< snipped>

>     This disaster could never happen without screens
> for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to
> de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment
> of the auction
>
> 1C   1D
> 1NT  2C
> 2H   2S
> 3D
>
> Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_.
> This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his
> partner remembered the system and, however
> improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL
> hand for his bidding. If responder had
>
> Kxxx
> xxxx
> Qxx
> xx
>
> then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like
> his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the
> traditional school prohibits him to do so).
>   But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would
> know that the wheels haven't come off. He
> would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking
> bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing
> 2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would
> then jump to 7NT.
>     The depicted scenario is a very common one in
> real life. Players do need this information from
> alerts that confirm that partner remembers the
> system and that it is safe for them to
>
> a) assume that partner has his bidding
> b) to trot out the next bid of their their
> 4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear
>
>     Playing behind screens players lose this
> reassuring confidence and disasters like the one
> described above are common. These don't have to be
> spectacular disasters like this one - very often
> players are afraid to investigate and search for
> the best contract with their machinery and jump
> to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the
> same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I
> was playing in the Third Division and screens were
> introduced for the first time. On simple auctions
> bids asking for kings started becoming final
> contracts. And this was happening to pairs who
> were not cheats, this was happening to everyone.
> This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower
> at the time.
>     Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens
> wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look:
>
>
> 1C   1D
> 1NT  2C
> 2H   2S
> 3D   4H
> ???
>
> Now opener would have the very same guess as he had
> in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but
> when you play dWS it means nothing. 

Come again? I cannot believe that opener will alert 2S in tempo (let 
alone explain it confidently as relay, 16+, if asked), nor will he bid 
3D in tempo. There will be lots of UI the other way already. And now you 
want me to believe that responder alerts 3D without hesitation and will 
have adapted to the situation fast enough to have an expanation ready 
without giving the show away? Pretty unlikely, i`d say.

> He still might
> have
>
> Kxxx
> xxxx
> Qxx
> xx
>
> He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to
> himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and,
> playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI.
> So opener would be in the
> very same position as he was behind screens in real
> life. And he would pass 4H just the same following
> the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real
> life.
>   

So you want us to buy the notion that opener will pass 4H after 
responder alerted 3D? Get serious. Opener is only human after all.

>     So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you
> are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However
> this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI
> frquently can be corrected. You can correct it before
> dummy goes down, especially in one-way acutions chances
> of damaging the opponents are minimal. More
> importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI
> infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch
> it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X
> while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see
> the discrepancy. Director!
>     UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very
> subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect
> them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to
> catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also -
> sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being
> a beginner, you see a discrepancy  between the
> explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On
> the other hand even if you are a top expert and
> see your oppoents bid
>
> 1C   1D
> 1NT  2C
> 2H   2S
> 3D   4H
> 5D   7NT
> pass
>
> 2S  = relay
> 3D = 4=4=3=2
> 4H = RKCB, D agreed
> 5D = 2KC + DQ
>
> and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed
> the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner,
> we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen
> a real life example of a pair who needed this
> information as without it they landed in 4H as one
> of them lost confidence)

So what you need to keep on bidding after 4H is not so much an alert but 
more confidence in partner, is it? Or maybe firmer agreements, and 
probably both.

>  you have absolutely no
> grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD?
> All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and
> explained, the explanations matched both the hands
> and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir,
> please put these two clowns behind screens and they
> won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would
> get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust.
>
>
>     This is why dWS is superior to traditional school.
> Pairs playing traditional school gain an important
> advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use
> a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same
> wavelength") freely.
>   

Players playing according to what you call the traditional school are 
actually playing by the rules. This occasionally leads to problems, as 
you observed. I do not deny that the phenomenon you described exists, 
but the remedy for this is not dWs, it is screens, because the players 
with enough knowledge about their obligations to handle certain UI 
problems withou screens usually are the ones who play with screens 
anyway, while the ones having problems with UI are the ones who wouldn't 
play Bridge if they had to do so at screens (not ecause they want to 
cheat, but because screens sre contrary to the basic idea of a club, 
which is to pass your time with people sharing your hobby, having a chat 
when the round is not called, and so on.
as you said, discrepancies between hand and description are caught at 
least 99% of the time, so there is no suspicion of cheating. A baby 
could have noticed. But voluntarly giving MI? That is a different kettle 
of fish altogether.

Let us assume players who know the rules and their ethical obligations. 
They could play "traditional", see that they have UI, and do the right 
thing, not using the UI, going down 1100 or something. Or they could 
play dWs, not using UI, correcting the MI and so on, and going off 1100 
in a different contract. The problem is that more than 95% of players 
couldn`t do either, and it is much easier to cheat using dWs than 
"traditional", because the case you described (which exists, no doubt 
about it) is very rare, while chances to survive by giving MI and hope 
nobody notices are penty.

The only time the dWs may have an advantage is when the dWs player has a 
partner whom he does not trust to handle UI. So why not educate him? If 
my knowledge of the rules is that much better, and if my ethics aloow me 
to use either "method" without cheating, why not teach partner to do it, 
too? And everyone else, while I am at it. Then anyone could play by the 
rules and be done with it. But do you trust everyone to correct the MI 
in time when it may go unnoticed? I wouldn't, because anyone who cannot 
handle UI cannot handle giving deliberate MI either, but is usually more 
difficult to detect, your pretty spectacular example nonwithstanding.
If people could handle UI perfectly we would not be having this 
discussion. So why should they be able to handle MI?

I found your observations very interesting, and some conclusions 
correct, but your final answer to the problem is IMO wrong.

Best regards
Matthias

> Konrad Ciborowski
> Kraków, Poland
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chcesz kupic aparat? Sprawdz, ktory jest najlepszy!
> Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd3
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>   