Year End Congress 2

[nige1]

The AI suggests that a spade lead is a bad idea. If one were allowed to take into account the UI (that partner potentially has length and strength in spades) in addition to the AI, a spade lead would still a bad idea.

 

However, the worry exists that West's line of thinking was simply "I'm leading partner's suit" without stopping to think whether leading "partner's suit" mIght be a good idea, let alone whether it might actually not be legal to conclude that partner's suit was spades. This means that the spade lead would appear to be a breach of Law 73C, even if it can be argued that Law 16A does not apply.

 

By the way, I don't think that West's lead should be considered a "serious error" akin to a revoke, because revokes are (usually) accidental infractions. Here the apparent "use of UI" is quite deliberate. I'd far rather call the deliberate decision to make a lead "wild" and/or "gambling" and to split the score on that basis.

IMO, from West's point of view

• AI from the bidding and opponents' explanations is that opponents have a ♠-fit. Hence, from AI and your ♠ holding, you judge that partner may be able to ruff a ♠ lead.
• UI from partner's question is that LHO has misbid or psyched with a shortage and RHO holds ♠ over partner. Thus, UI suggests that a ♠ lead is a bad idea,
• It seems harsh to assume that West led a ♠ because he is stupid rather than ethical.

[nige1]

I disagree with nearly all of this. The auction as it stands makes no sense, and in any case North will have corrected the lack-of-alert of 3S before the opening lead, so West does in fact have AI that dummy has short spades, declarer has spade length and partner has spade stuff.

mjj29 tells us that North misbid and that South's explanation "natural, pre-emptive" is the true partnership agreement. North is not obliged to reveal his actual ♠ holding, nor did he, according to the original post,

 

East's unfortunate question compromises West with UI, hinting that dummy has short spades.

[Trinidad]

I disagree with nearly all of this.

The auction as it stands makes no sense, and in any case North will have corrected the lack-of-alert of 3S before the opening lead, so West does in fact have AI that dummy has short spades, declarer has spade length and partner has spade stuff.

Those were going to be my first question:

Who called the TD?

When?

Did North correct South's explanation without a TD present (technically an infraction, but I will let that one slip)?

 

Can someone give us the facts?

 

Rik

[jallerton]

IMO, from West's point of view

• AI from the bidding and opponents' explanations is that opponents have a ♠-fit. Hence, from AI and your ♠ holding, you judge that partner may be able to ruff a ♠ lead.
• UI from partner's question is that LHO has misbid or psyched with a shortage and RHO holds ♠ over partner. Thus, UI suggests that a ♠ lead is a bad idea,
• It seems harsh to assume that West led a ♠ because he is stupid rather than ethical.

 

Nigel, you seem to have overlooked the point that if North had a pre-emptive jump shift response in spades, he would definitely have passed the raise to 4♠. Therefore, West can eliminate that hand type from the North hand. There is no logical layout consistent with this auction where partner has a spade void. In any case, although mjj29 does not seem to know the full facts of the case, North should have corrected the explanation before the opening lead was made. If North did not correct the explanation, then the TD has yet another infraction to consider!

[Trinidad]

Agree with jallerton. East-West are again victims of a legal double-whammy :( :(

 

Presumably the only legal meaning for North's unalerted 3♠ is "strong and natural". East has reason to doubt this. Commentators in these fora often admonish players for failure to protect themselves. When players protest "The inevitable UI may handicap partner", legal-experts reassure them that directors will be understanding about such law-induced damage. East masochistically complies with the rules. Here again, however, the result is a lose-lose situation for the victims :(

I fully agree. East has every reason to ask about the 3♠ bid. We can be fairly sure that he would have doubled 3♠, suggesting a spade save, if the explanation had been "splinter". He protected himself from the opponents' irregularity, heard from South that there was no irregularity (when there actually was one, making that he second irregularity) and couldn't do much else but pass.

 

The consequence of this "protecting yourself" was that West had UI. This UI was the result of not one, but two irregularities by South and the fact that "we" force East to "protect himself".

 

And the final result is, as ever, that everyone is jumping on EW. The TDs are not living up to the promiss to East: "If you protect yourself, we will protect you." That is not surprising since TDs hardly ever protect "self protectors" when it comes to it.

 

See how much easier this case would have been if we didn't require East to "protect himself". He could have safely assumed that 3♠ promised spades. He would have passed. NS would have screwed up the auction, using the same UI, and landed in the same 5♥X. Then, North would have called the TD. The TD would have given EW the correct information about the agreements and tell EW to call him back if they want to.

 

We don't know what West would have lead without UI. Let's assume he would lead a spade¹. The contract makes. East calls the TD and tells him that he would have doubled 3♠ with the correct information. West would have bid 4♠ and NS probably would not have gone on to 5♥ (with EW bidding the suit that North supposedly had). The TD could give EW 9 tricks in 4♠ as an AS or decide on a weighted score depending how likely he thinks it would be for NS to compete to 5♥ or to double.

 

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should. Let's get rid of the whole "self protecting" right now and let the missinformers just pay for their irregularities, in accordance with the Laws. Because, as it is now, "self protecting" is in fact "missinformer protecting" and "selfinflicting".

 

Rik

 

¹If he would lead a club, the TD wouldn't need to be called again.

[nige1]

Nigel, you seem to have overlooked the point that if North had a pre-emptive jump shift response in spades, he would definitely have passed the raise to 4♠. Therefore, West can eliminate that hand type from the North hand. There is no logical layout consistent with this auction where partner has a spade void. In any case, although mjj29 does not seem to know the full facts of the case, North should have corrected the explanation before the opening lead was made. If North did not correct the explanation, then the TD has yet another infraction to consider!

As BBOers, we can comment only on the basis of given facts:

AI from the auction may well cause West to suspect that opponents have misbid or misexplained.

Partner's ill-fated question converts suspicion to certainty.

It also indicates the nature of opponents' mistake.

It makes it likely that LHO intended a splinter (rather than a fit-jump or strong jump-shift, say).

This UI demonstrably suggests a non-spade lead over a spade lead.

What should an ethical West lead?

[mfa1010]

And the final result is, as ever, that everyone is jumping on EW. The TDs are not living up to the promiss to East: "If you protect yourself, we will protect you." That is not surprising since TDs hardly ever protect "self protectors" when it comes to it.

(...)

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should.

The TD should not protect them when the do abuse UI (nigel questions if they did, but that is a different discussion).

 

Here if just west doesn't abuse UI, then they would get all the protection they need.

 

The drawback of having to protect oneself is when we ask about a bid that turns out to be natural (which is not the case here).

 

Therefore the principle of protecting oneself can only be applicable when there is a very strong reason to suspect something fishy. Either with a missing alert or when somebody says something that clearly sounds wrong.

 

Accordingly I don't think that east is required to protect himself in this case. He can't rule out a spade suit just because he has Kxxxxx. But I think the principle as such is indispensable to avoid players from acting 'unreasonable' (bluejacks word from the other thread) when they really know better. Say east had eight good spades. If he then didn't act (ask or bid) he would be on his own.

[bluejak]

I fully agree. East has every reason to ask about the 3♠ bid. We can be fairly sure that he would have doubled 3♠, suggesting a spade save, if the explanation had been "splinter". He protected himself from the opponents' irregularity, heard from South that there was no irregularity (when there actually was one, making that he second irregularity) and couldn't do much else but pass.

 

The consequence of this "protecting yourself" was that West had UI. This UI was the result of not one, but two irregularities by South and the fact that "we" force East to "protect himself".

 

And the final result is, as ever, that everyone is jumping on EW. The TDs are not living up to the promiss to East: "If you protect yourself, we will protect you." That is not surprising since TDs hardly ever protect "self protectors" when it comes to it.

 

See how much easier this case would have been if we didn't require East to "protect himself". He could have safely assumed that 3♠ promised spades. He would have passed. NS would have screwed up the auction, using the same UI, and landed in the same 5♥X. Then, North would have called the TD. The TD would have given EW the correct information about the agreements and tell EW to call him back if they want to.

 

We don't know what West would have lead without UI. Let's assume he would lead a spade¹. The contract makes. East calls the TD and tells him that he would have doubled 3♠ with the correct information. West would have bid 4♠ and NS probably would not have gone on to 5♥ (with EW bidding the suit that North supposedly had). The TD could give EW 9 tricks in 4♠ as an AS or decide on a weighted score depending how likely he thinks it would be for NS to compete to 5♥ or to double.

 

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should. Let's get rid of the whole "self protecting" right now and let the missinformers just pay for their irregularities, in accordance with the Laws. Because, as it is now, "self protecting" is in fact "missinformer protecting" and "selfinflicting".

 

Rik

 

¹If he would lead a club, the TD wouldn't need to be called again.

Whether West's lead was a good idea or not, there is little doubt that it was based on UI. The reason that I jumped on E/W, as you put it, is because West clearly did not follow the Laws.

 

Now, suppose he had followed the Laws, and not led a spade. Then we would have made any decisions based on whether E/W were damaged by the MI, and whether there was MI, and on nothing else.

 

There is no attempt to rule against people who try and protect themselves, but there will always be doubt when a player does not follow the Laws. You have the wrong reason for lack of sympathy to E/W: it is nothing to do with protecting himself or otherwise, it is to do with his partner following the Laws.

[Trinidad]

I fully agree. East has every reason to ask about the 3♠ bid. We can be fairly sure that he would have doubled 3♠, suggesting a spade save, if the explanation had been "splinter". He protected himself from the opponents' irregularity, heard from South that there was no irregularity (when there actually was one, making that he second irregularity) and couldn't do much else but pass.

 

The consequence of this "protecting yourself" was that West had UI. This UI was the result of not one, but two irregularities by South and the fact that "we" force East to "protect himself".

 

And the final result is, as ever, that everyone is jumping on EW. The TDs are not living up to the promiss to East: "If you protect yourself, we will protect you." That is not surprising since TDs hardly ever protect "self protectors" when it comes to it.

 

See how much easier this case would have been if we didn't require East to "protect himself". He could have safely assumed that 3♠ promised spades. He would have passed. NS would have screwed up the auction, using the same UI, and landed in the same 5♥X. Then, North would have called the TD. The TD would have given EW the correct information about the agreements and tell EW to call him back if they want to.

 

We don't know what West would have lead without UI. Let's assume he would lead a spade1. The contract makes. East calls the TD and tells him that he would have doubled 3♠ with the correct information. West would have bid 4♠ and NS probably would not have gone on to 5♥ (with EW bidding the suit that North supposedly had). The TD could give EW 9 tricks in 4♠ as an AS or decide on a weighted score depending how likely he thinks it would be for NS to compete to 5♥ or to double.

 

This example is like so many others. "Self protecting" leads to a mess because TDs do not protect the "self protectors" when they should. Let's get rid of the whole "self protecting" right now and let the missinformers just pay for their irregularities, in accordance with the Laws. Because, as it is now, "self protecting" is in fact "missinformer protecting" and "selfinflicting".

 

Rik

 

1If he would lead a club, the TD wouldn't need to be called again.

Whether West's lead was a good idea or not, there is little doubt that it was based on UI. The reason that I jumped on E/W, as you put it, is because West clearly did not follow the Laws.

Now, suppose that NS would not have broken the Laws: South would have alerted 3♠ and explained as a splinter. West leads a spade. Would you have any reason to jump on EW?

 

No, none whatsoever.

 

You may think that West broke the Laws by leading a spade, since the lead was suggested by UI. I agree with that (but see below¹), that is not the issue. The point is that the whole case would have been avoided if only NS would have followed the Laws. Because NS didn't follow the Laws (on at least two occasions!), EW are limited in their actions (unless they like being jumped on by TDs).

Now, suppose he had followed the Laws, and not led a spade. Then we would have made any decisions based on whether E/W were damaged by the MI, and whether there was MI, and on nothing else.

 

There is no attempt to rule against people who try and protect themselves, but there will always be doubt when a player does not follow the Laws. You have the wrong reason for lack of sympathy to E/W: it is nothing to do with protecting himself or otherwise, it is to do with his partner following the Laws.

That would be really, really bad: "an attempt to rule against people who try and protect themselves". It is very reassuring that at least you are not actively trying to rule against "self protectors". I assume that you didn't mean what you implied, but it illustrates the general attitude towards "self protectors". "Not attempting to rule against "self-protectors"" is clearly insufficient when you are supposed to protect "self-protectors".

 

The point is that "self protecting" puts you in the same position as a BIT. This is a position that good players try to avoid, since it comes with a lot of strings.

 

Getting in a BIT position is something that you usually can avoid. You get in a BIT position through your own poor timing. You can often get out of it by taking the active action (bidding rather than passing).

You get in a self protecting position because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty. There is usually no way out, since if the opponents did everything according to the rules, you will not be able to make a call other than pass. (See this example where East did protect and South claimed that there was no reason to alert since 3♠ promissed a genuine suit. Now East could not do anything but pass.)

 

If NS would have followed the rules, West would not even have been in a position to break the Laws.

 

Rik

 

¹ I didn't get an answer to my questions regarding to who called the TD when and what was explained when. If the misinformation was not corrected before the opening lead, the spade lead stands out as an attempt to give partner a ruff. In that case the spade lead wouldn't even be close to an irregularity.

[bluejak]

You get in a self protecting position because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty.

This is completely baseless and does not follow from anything you have said. There are UI Laws, and if you do not follow them you have not followed the Law. That applies whatever causes the UI, whether bad luck, bad timing, involuntary exclamations, poor regulations, unfortunate consequences of good or bad regulations, and so forth. The suggestion that a person is in such a position because the regulators try to protect the guilty is just ridiculous.

[Trinidad]

You get in a self protecting position because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty.

This is completely baseless and does not follow from anything you have said. There are UI Laws, and if you do not follow them you have not followed the Law. That applies whatever causes the UI, whether bad luck, bad timing, involuntary exclamations, poor regulations, unfortunate consequences of good or bad regulations, and so forth. The suggestion that a person is in such a position because the regulators try to protect the guilty is just ridiculous.

 

Do you understand at all what the self protecting requirement leads to and what I am talking about? I don't think so.

 

Suppose you have a nice spade suit and you hear the bidding start on your left: 1♥-Pass-3♠-??

 

The bid has not been alerted. Opponents bid to a heart contract (whether game or slam hardly matters) and before the opening lead the intended dummy says that 3♠ should have been alerted. You call the TD. He says play the board, call me back if necessary. The opponents make their heart contract, but it turns out you had a nice save in spades. You call the TD back and say that you would have doubled 3♠ to suggest a save. The ruling: "Well, everybody plays splinters, and you're experienced enough, so you should know that this was most likely a splinter. The regulations say that you have to protect yourself by asking. Result stands."

 

Next round. Miraculously, you hold a nice spade suit and the auction starts at your left: 1♥-Pass-3♠-??. Again, no alert. You have learnt, though, and you ask what it means. The opener tells you, slightly irritated: "A hand with a good spade suit, of course. Did you see any alert?". How the auction continues is irrelevant. Your partner has UI that suggests you have something in spades. And partner is limited in his options.

 

Why is partner limited in his options? Not because of any irregularity by your side. And also not because of any irregularity by the opponents. He is limited because of the irregularity at the other table. Just because this irregularity (sloppy alerting of "obviously alertable" bids) happens so often, regulators have thought that it would be a good idea to protect those sloppy alerters (which I call "the guilty") from Secretary Birds. But, as a result, they forced the NOP to protect themselves, which leaves the NOP at a considerable disadvantage when it was actually correct to not alert the bid.

 

I hope that this makes my statement pretty clear.

You get in a self protecting position (at a table) because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty (the sloppy alerters at an other table).

 

Rik

 

P.S. The actual case was even worse. There was no alert (1). East protected himself against potential MI. South claimed the bid was natural (2). That brought EW in the "self protecting UI situation". Then North used the UI from South's explanation by bidding 5♥, rather than taking 4♠ as showing the ♠A and following up with the obvious 4NT bid (3). And then, on top of that, it becomes clear that 3♠ actually did require an alert and was explained wrong.

 

Now, west led a spade. And now, after at least (we still don't have any info about who corrected what when) three irregularities by NS (2x MI and 1 x use of UI) you are jumping on West's spade lead because it was based on UI. The UI that West wouldn't have had if either NS would have followed the rules or the regulators would not have forced East to protect himself.

[campboy]

Before criticising the regulation we should perhaps read it.

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

So in situations like the one you describe, where "protecting yourself" might damage you by giving UI to partner, you are not expected to do it. No problem.

[bluejak]

Do you understand at all what the self protecting requirement leads to and what I am talking about? I don't think so.

 

Suppose you have a nice spade suit and you hear the bidding start on your left: 1♥-Pass-3♠-??

 

The bid has not been alerted. Opponents bid to a heart contract (whether game or slam hardly matters) and before the opening lead the intended dummy says that 3♠ should have been alerted. You call the TD. He says play the board, call me back if necessary. The opponents make their heart contract, but it turns out you had a nice save in spades. You call the TD back and say that you would have doubled 3♠ to suggest a save. The ruling: "Well, everybody plays splinters, and you're experienced enough, so you should know that this was most likely a splinter. The regulations say that you have to protect yourself by asking. Result stands."

 

Next round. Miraculously, you hold a nice spade suit and the auction starts at your left: 1♥-Pass-3♠-??. Again, no alert. You have learnt, though, and you ask what it means. The opener tells you, slightly irritated: "A hand with a good spade suit, of course. Did you see any alert?". How the auction continues is irrelevant. Your partner has UI that suggests you have something in spades. And partner is limited in his options.

 

Why is partner limited in his options? Not because of any irregularity by your side. And also not because of any irregularity by the opponents. He is limited because of the irregularity at the other table. Just because this irregularity (sloppy alerting of "obviously alertable" bids) happens so often, regulators have thought that it would be a good idea to protect those sloppy alerters (which I call "the guilty") from Secretary Birds. But, as a result, they forced the NOP to protect themselves, which leaves the NOP at a considerable disadvantage when it was actually correct to not alert the bid.

 

I hope that this makes my statement pretty clear.

Certainly. And it shows how completely wrong it is. The regulators did not protect the guilty in any way. All they did was point out that the Law must be followed. If there is an infraction, but there is no damage caused by the infraction, then there is no adjustment. That is a matter of Law. So when a player is damaged by his own actions and not by the opponents' infraction there is no adjustment. That is a matter of Law. So the regulators have tried to clarify this for people. Your suggestion that they have written their clarifications with the intention of protecting guilty people is ridiculous and untrue.

 

P.S. The actual case was even worse. There was no alert (1). East protected himself against potential MI. South claimed the bid was natural (2). That brought EW in the "self protecting UI situation". Then North used the UI from South's explanation by bidding 5♥, rather than taking 4♠ as showing the ♠A and following up with the obvious 4NT bid (3). And then, on top of that, it becomes clear that 3♠ actually did require an alert and was explained wrong.

 

Now, west led a spade. And now, after at least (we still don't have any info about who corrected what when) three irregularities by NS (2x MI and 1 x use of UI) you are jumping on West's spade lead because it was based on UI. The UI that West wouldn't have had if either NS would have followed the rules or the regulators would not have forced East to protect himself.

I am jumping on West's lead because it was illegal. I did not comment at that time about the N/S actions. If you think you have a right to break th Law because of opponents' actions you are naive. Suppose you are in a 30 mph speed limit area. A car passes you doing 70 mph. Do you think you have a right to break the Law and [say] speed up to 55 mph? Well, you do not. The Law applies to you, period. So whatever the regulators say or do, whatever N/S do, West has a requirement to follow the UI Laws.

[Trinidad]

Before criticising the regulation we should perhaps read it.

Orange Book 3A3 said:

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

So in situations like the one you describe, where "protecting yourself" might damage you by giving UI to partner, you are not expected to do it. No problem.

Thank you for the quote. However, this only makes the story slightly clearer.

 

I cannot come up with an example where I would not put my side's interests at risk. By definition, I will always give UI (unless we play with screens) and will always risk waking up opponents, unless I am in a position to pass out the hand to my advantage.

 

In other words, if you follow the regulation strictly, it clearly never applies. Nevertheless, it was written. That must mean that whoever wrote it thought that there must be situations where it applies, doesn't it? In other words, the regulators think that the non offending side should also protect himself when there is "a small risk" (let's call it "acceptable") that one puts their side's interests at risk.

 

Now, who decides whether this risk is acceptable? For sure it must be the player himself at first and after that the TD. If you hold: ♠K97652 ♥A8 ♦87 ♣A97 and hear the auction start: (1♥)-2♣-(3♠) without an alert, how high do you consider the odds that your RHO really has the non alertable meaning for his call (which, if I understood things correctly, in the EBU is: "Lots of spades and a strong hand")?

 

I would say that it is extremely likely that, after your question, LHO will apologise for forgetting to alert. He will explain it as a splinter and you will be doubling that. This will happen in over 99.99% of the cases. If any risk to put your own interest at risk would be "acceptable", this would be a sure case, wouldn't it? Therefore, East must protect himself in this case, otherwise the regulation should never have been written in the first place.

 

East does protect himself and gets screwed.

 

Conclusion: Not even this risk is acceptable, the regulation never applies. It should never have been written in the first place.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Certainly. And it shows how completely wrong it is. The regulators did not protect the guilty in any way.

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. (OB 3A3)

You do not consider that protecting misinformers ("the guilty")?

 

If you would not put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer would get to keep a bad result and, in case of a good result, he will see the TD at the table, his good score will be taken from him through an AS and he risks a PP.

 

When you do put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer walks.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

You do not consider that protecting misinformers ("the guilty")?

 

If you would not put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer would get to keep a bad result and, in case of a good result, he will see the TD at the table, his good score will be taken from him through an AS and he risks a PP.

 

When you do put that responsibility on the "experienced player", the misinformer walks.

You are still misquoting me, deliberately I fancy. Of course it is always fun to use emotive words like "the guilty" so that people will not see the lack of argument behind what you are saying.

 

You still have produced no argument whatever to suggest that the regulators are deliberately trying to help people breaking the rules rather than just clarifying the Law.

[Trinidad]

You are still misquoting me, deliberately I fancy. Of course it is always fun to use emotive words like "the guilty" so that people will not see the lack of argument behind what you are saying.

 

You still have produced no argument whatever to suggest that the regulators are deliberately trying to help people breaking the rules rather than just clarifying the Law.

 

I have quoted you, using the "reply" function. Please enlighten me, where I have misquoted you and this misunderstanding can be solved, because I certainly do not have any intention to misquote you or to misunderstand you.

 

I am not sure whether that is mutual. You now want me to produce an argument that the regulators are helping people breaking the rules. I have never claimed that regulators helped people breaking the rules.

 

I claimed, and I believe quite clearly so, that regulators -in an attempt to protect people who already have broken the rules, typically by failing to alert- take the risk of putting a non offending side between a rock and a hard place.

 

They do this by requiring this non offending side to choose between:

1) doing nothing and take the risk of a bad result when there was MI from the opponents. On top of that they can expect a remark from the TD that they should have protected themselves

2) protecting themselves and run the risk that there was no MI (i.e. the opponents actually play that the bid was natural and not alertable). In that case, they will invariably give their partner UI, which will put their side at a disadvantage.

 

In this actual case, I believe there would have been plenty of TDs in the EBU who would have told East that he should have protected himself if he wouldn't have asked. I know that, you know that and East knew it too. Therefore, he asked. And as a result West had UI.

 

The fact is that West wouldn't have had UI if East could have just passed without needing to protect himself.

 

Rik

[nige1]

I have quoted you, using the "reply" function. Please enlighten me, where I have misquoted you and this misunderstanding can be solved, because I certainly do not have any intention to misquote you or to misunderstand you.

I am not sure whether that is mutual. You now want me to produce an argument that the regulators are helping people breaking the rules. I have never claimed that regulators helped people breaking the rules.

I claimed, and I believe quite clearly so, that regulators -in an attempt to protect people who already have broken the rules, typically by failing to alert- take the risk of putting a non offending side between a rock and a hard place.

They do this by requiring this non offending side to choose between:

1) doing nothing and take the risk of a bad result when there was MI from the opponents. On top of that they can expect a remark from the TD that they should have protected themselves

2) protecting themselves and run the risk that there was no MI (i.e. the opponents actually play that the bid was natural and not alertable). In that case, they will invariably give their partner UI, which will put their side at a disadvantage.

In this actual case, I believe there would have been plenty of TDs in the EBU who would have told East that he should have protected himself if he wouldn't have asked. I know that, you know that and East knew it too. Therefore, he asked. And as a result West had UI.

The fact is that West wouldn't have had UI if East could have just passed without needing to protect himself.

I suspect that Bluejak's real problem in arguing with Trinidad is that, like many players, both are in fundamental agreement that "protect-yourself" rules are fatally flawed. IMO, they should be scrapped. If disclosure rules were simplified, the law could place all the onus on the disclosers.

[Trinidad]

I suspect that Bluejak's real problem in arguing with Trinidad is that, like many players, both are in fundamental agreement that "protect-yourself" rules are fatally flawed. IMO, they should be scrapped. If disclosure rules were simplified, the law could place all the onus on the disclosers.

That sums it up. I don't know why it took me so much text to write just that.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

I am not interested in this case as to whether the rules are good, bad, indifferent or fatally flawed. It is Trinidad's assertion that the reason for them is for the purpose of helping people break the rules I find so galling. He says the regulators have brought these regulations in to make life easier for the players who break the rules, and that is just not true. What the effect of these rules it is not relevant tot this assertion: it is the statement of the purpose I dislike.

 

And what rules is he talking about? Simply ones that clarify the Laws. But instead of treating them as clarification [whether good, bad, indifferent or flawed] he asserts their purpose is to help people who break the Laws. It is a shocking assertion.

 

But it is very difficult to argue with it in detail because he produces no backing for this assertion, nothing to disagree with, even though it is such an awful thing to say.

[alphatango]

The regulation:

 

It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

 

If I understand correctly, Trinidad argues that 1) the regulation as written is of essentially null effect, but 2) this is not the case in practice due to previous and current directors' rulings (rather, the effect is to disadvantage the NOS), and 3) further, the regulators would not have written a regulation intending it to be of null effect, so 4) the regulators must have intended the actual effect.

 

bluejak counters that the regulation is indeed intended to be of null effect (a clarification rather than a modification) and therefore that the implication about the motives of the regulators is improper.

 

Expressing no opinion about the merits of that argument, can someone explain to me why directors are ruling incorrectly, leading to point 2? (Or is that under dispute?) Have relevant appeals been considered by the L&EC? (Links to any cases would be appreciated.)

[bluejak]

First, I do not believe it is of null effect.

 

Second, I do not believe that the effect of the regulation has relevance to why the regulators wrote it.

 

Third, I do not understand why you say TDs are ruling wrong - nothing to do with my argument with Trinidad, but another strange assertion in my view, though not one with the same feelings behind it.

[alphatango]

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

 

2. From the discussion, I understand that there have been cases in which directors have ruled that the NOS in a misinformation case could and should have asked questions, and were denied redress on that basis. It is not clear to me what those situations would be, and I'd appreciate an example (or a case writeup).

 

(Comments for clarity: By "null effect" I meant that rulings should be the same under the law with and without the regulation. By "directors ruling incorrectly" I meant that they must be so doing if they are ruling that the NOS must protect themselves even when they "put their side's interests at risk" by asking.)

[campboy]

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI?

When one is declarer.

[alphatango]

When one is declarer.

 

*grins* Noted. Also, I suppose, if you can convince the director that in a particular situation you always ask or randomly ask. But I am thinking of the particular case of an unalerted bid (and where you cannot so convince the director).