[blml] A strory with a conclusion

[Konrad Ciborowski]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion


> On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
>
>>> You know your system (or think you do).  You make a bid which has a
>>> definite meaning in your system.  But partner's alert (or lack of
>>> alert) tells you that he thinks it means something else, something
>>> different, something which is not covered by your agreements.  The
>>> dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in
>>> accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant.
>>>
>>> But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that
>>> is.
>>>
>>> It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S
>>> thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in
>>> the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to
>>> himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP
>>> with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself,
>>> "What the hell?!"
>>
>> I assume that you wrote your post in haste. Because
>> I just cannot believe you can be so comepletely off base
>> when it comes to describing reality. Come on.
>>
>> If you and your partner agree to some artificial treatment and
>> you forget then an unexpected alert is more than enough for you
>> to remind you of the convention you have agreed to.
>>
>> Think about the pair in question. Opener bid 3D with a diamond
>> doubleton holding 4=4=2=3. Do you think he invented this bid
>> at the table? Of course not - this pair agreed to play
>> the artificial relay Stayman, agreed on the step responses,
>> agreed on the method of suit setting and everything.
>> This time responder remembered this very well but even if
>> he forgot and bid 2S naturally it is obvious that
>> the alert of this bid would immediately remind him that
>> he has just bid the relay.
>
> Sure, the dWS works particularly well in Konrad's particularly well-
> chosen example.  But look what Konrad is expecting the dWS follower
> to do.
>
> He makes an alertable (or non-alertable) bid which he believes is the
> correct call in his system.  But partner doesn't alert (or does).  In
> the time it takes the auction to reach his partner, he must determine
> *correctly* that partner's failure to alert was due to partner's
> having misunderstood his call, rather than, say, to unfamiliarity
> with the alert procedures, or simple inattention, he must determine
> *correctly* what partner thought his call meant, he must determine
> *correctly* what methods partner believes himself to be playing that
> include the agreement he thinks you are using, which may not, in
> fact, have anything to do with your system at all, he must determine
> *correctly* in that context what partner thinks partner's response to
> his call means, he must make a determination whether what partner
> thinks partner's call means is or isn't alertable, and he must do
> this all absolutely smoothly, without the least hitch or hesitation
> that might reveal that he and his partner may be having a
> miscommunication, lest the whole point of following the dWS be lost.

I have been using dWs for years and I almost never have
any problems your're describing.
Sorry, Eric, but the practice proves you wrong - following
dWs is nowhere near as difficult as you describe it.

Even if you get it wrong sometimes you end up sending
UI to you partner - so are in the same place as
if you would be the follower of the traditional way.

You don't lose anything.

And MI is an infraction that is far, far less damaging
to the game than UI. The former is always detected -
the latter is rarely detected. Also there can be and
often there are various levels of UI - bid in tempo,
bid slightly hasty, a tad slower, after a 2-3 second
pause, longer pauses etc. Most of them are
registered by the players, most of them
send important information, most of them
mean something - and most of them
are impossible to police. MI, on the other
hand, most of the time (though not always but
most of the time) is a yes-no problem -
either he has 5S or he hasn't. Either has
5+-5+ in reds or he has 6+C. And so on.

My estimation is that in a typical tournament
about 80% of MI cases are caught while
about 80% cases of UI use go undetected.

That's why players should do everthing they
can to limit UI. It is much more detrimental
to the game.

Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland


>
> I don't think that "comes to describing reality" very well most of
> the time.  Admittedly, in Konrad's example it might, but I don't see
> how we can generalize from that example to the entire dWS.
>
>
> 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
> 



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprawdz, ktore komorki sa najmodniejsze!
Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd4