[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Hans van Staveren]

[JP]

Look guys; why don't you read law 40? "Why did you bid 2H?"

1) "I psyched"
2) "I pulled the wrong bid"
3)" I was playing Muiderberg this morning with someone else"
4) "The opponents are arseholes and I decided to wind them up"
5) "We needed a swing/top"

Take your pick. So friggin what? Intent is irrelevant.

It's different if he says 6) "I do this quite often and we have a CPU", see 
"Yes" below

"Have you made this misbid in this partnership recently?"

"No" - score stands (make a report to a recorder file, or better still get 
pissed with the other TDs now and then which is how we do it in the UK.)
"Yes" - I'd better investigate further. Maybe I'll adjust; maybe I'll issue 
a PP. Maybe I'll eject him.

-*THIS IS NOT HARD!*_    John

[HvS]

Technically this is even very easy, both under old and new laws. However,
the Dutch NAC does it wrong. David Burn gets at least partly excited about
it, *and I understand this*. As a player I have difficulty being cool after
I got blasted away by a pair that misbid and landed on his feet. Of course,
looking back, I can understand that usually it goes wrong. If I score +1400
I try to be a nice guy, and not laugh at them after they ended up in a 5-1
split doubled.

But human beings have different memories for good things and bad things.
Especially appeal committee members get a very strange view of life, since
they only see the ones that succeed. Bridge players say that they would
prefer these sort of things not to happen.

So I understand if players want to write memos about how these things can be
handled better. I am just interested in seeing these memos, because I cannot
think of a better way of handling it than the way current in the laws.

BTW: if you ask any bridge player(that actually wants to win) whether he
prefers his opponents to know their system or not, he will of course say
not.

Hans