From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:20:53 GMT
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk

In article <1gso6rINNsrj@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>In article <1gr0o9INN34d@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
>> In article <1gqa5sINN120@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>> >In article <1gq7m9INNjpb@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
>> >> ...
>> >> Hmmmm. Why not consider what would have happened without screens?
>> >
>> >Gee.  When playing without screens, it sometimes helps to consider what would
>> >have happened with screens.  This is the first time I've heard someone suggest
>> >the reverse.
>> 
>> Here's another one. Consider what happens if the screen was the other way!
>> West gets North's interpretation of the bid, and gets the lead right.
>> >
>> >> North makes a bid which he considers should have been alerted, but South
>> >> doesn't. At the end of the auction, before West leads, North announces 
>> >> this to the world. EW are then alerted to the fact that someone has
>> >> fouled up, making a spade lead more likely.
>> >
>> >True.
>> >
>> >> I would adjust the score.
>> >
>> >Based on which Law???
>> 
>> On the law which says (not having a rule book to hand, I don't know which):
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I keep quoting Laws by chapter and verse to emphasize the importance of having
>a rule book at hand (unless, like Asya, you've committed the whole thing to
>memory) when considering rulings, especially on misinformation or unauthorized
>information.  The Laws are remarkably clear on these matters.
>
>> Where there has been a failure to alert, or an incorrect explanation of a bid
>> given, the declaring side should correct the error before the opening
>> lead is selected.
>
>Right [Law 75D2]
>
>> Since at least ONE of these was the case, as far as North was concerned 
>> (granted, only half the defending side was "misinformed"), then he was
>> required to tell the defence. The fact that he possibly wasn't aware that 
>> either offence had occurred is interesting, but I suspect irrelevant.
>
>It is relevant [Law 80E].
>
>> West was entitled to the views of the auction of BOTH North and South.
>
>NO!  West was entitled to know North and South's AGREEMENT.  If West was
>damaged as a result of not receiving correct information about the AGREEMENT
>in time, then West is entitled to an adjusted score.
>
>> EW were damaged by not knowing that North considered his bid to mean that
>> he had a singleton club.
>
>Yes, but EW were not entitled to know what North MEANT by his bid.  (Nor were
>they entitled to know what South THOUGHT North's bid meant.)  EW were entitled
>to know NS's AGREEMENT.
>
>> >West was damaged by the mistaken bid but not misinformed.  No adjustment.  [Law
>> >75C]
>> >
>> >East was misinformed but not damaged.  No adjustment.  [Law 40C]
>> >
>> >EW are not necessarily entitled to the information that someone fouled up
>> >[Law 75B], even though they would have gained that information had they been
>> >playing without screens.
>> 
>> Of course, if North DELIBERATELY made the mistaken bid, in an attempt to push
>> his partner into/keep his partner out of slam, then there is no recourse. Any
>> takers?
>
>There's nothing about intent in Law 40 or 75.  The phrases "violation of
>partnership agreements" and "mistaken bid" are used interchangeably.  There's
>no recourse for a violation of partnership agreements, whether it was deliberate
>or by mistake.
>
>The only recourse is for DAMAGE caused by MISINFORMATION concerning AGREEMENTS.
>
>Of course, procedural penalties for NS may be appropriate (even though this
>wasn't in midwestern USA), but not an adjustment to EW's score.

I saw this coming, but I decided to let you say it ('cos you'd do it better
than I could, having a rule book to hand :-).
By the way, anyone not wishing to read someone else's opinion should move on
now.

North made a bid, we assume that he thought he knew what he was doin.
South then failed to alert his bid, and gave an explanation which was at
variance with North's apparent understanding.
As far as North is concerned, South has incorrectly described his bid, and
has failed to alert when he should. He is not allowed to be reminded of
his system by South's action, and therefore should correct any explanation
by South which is at variance with what he at the time believed to be
his partnership agreement.
In other words, EW _are_ entitled to North's opinion of his bid.

By the way. I'm not a director. I just play a lot of bridge.

Robin Walters.

>-- 
>Tim Hill
>Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
>55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
>Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge