Warsaw?

[olegru]

A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently.

Is it your guess or you actually asked opponents about meaning of 2d?

I am very surprised because 2♦ is the most common bid bid in this situation. It is request for raptpor bidder to bid his 4 cards major.

[iviehoff]

While very questionable that assertion depends on what you mean by "correct explanation".

It is only questionable in your mind because you seem to have in mind various contraventions of law that I didn't suggest at all. Give a "correct explanation": it is not an offence to take advantage of UI to help you to do that. Avoid misuse of UI as the law provides.

 

If you knowingly give MI to your opponents because you have your fingers figuratively in your ears, that's your folly.

[pran]

It is only questionable in your mind because you seem to have in mind various contraventions of law that I didn't suggest at all. Give a "correct explanation": it is not an offence to take advantage of UI to help you to do that. Avoid misuse of UI as the law provides.

 

If you knowingly give MI to your opponents because you have your fingers figuratively in your ears, that's your folly.

You are supposed to give the explanation that in your own opinion (at the time) is a correct description of your partnership understandings.

 

If you subsequently become aware (for instance because of something your partner says or does) that you have given misinformation then you follow the instructions given in Law 20F4 and call the Director.

 

The Director should warn you that the information you have received from your partner in this way is UI to you, so you are bound by your own misunderstanding when selecting your calls until you in a legal manner become aware of your mistake on your partnership understandings.

[campboy]

Of course you're not allowed to use UI in choosing a call or play; no-one is suggesting otherwise. The point is that when describing a call to your opponents you should use all information you have, authorised or not, to ensure that your description matches your actual partnership agreements.

[mgoetze]

Then he should have said that it was impossible in their system,

 

that 2♦ by North has no defined meaning,

 

Such strange assumptions! Surely 2♦ just asks which 4-card major partner has?

[blackshoe]

Such strange assumptions! Surely 2♦ just asks which 4-card major partner has?

The only assumption I made is that the original poster told the truth when he said " A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently." So no, it doesn't ask which 4-card major partner has, speaking of strange assumptions. :ph34r:

[barmar]

but you are not allowed to change your own misunderstanding because of this reminder!

I think Lamford has previously argued that you can -- your LAs are based on your methods, not what you mistakenly thought your methods were prior to the UI.

 

I'm not sure he's managed to convince anyone else that his interpretation is how the UI laws should be applied.

[Vampyr]

I think Lamford has previously argued that you can -- your LAs are based on your methods, not what you mistakenly thought your methods were prior to the UI.

 

I'm not sure he's managed to convince anyone else that his interpretation is how the UI laws should be applied.

 

I am pretty sure that Lamford does not believe that that is how UI laws "should" be applied. His argument is, as usual, pretty roundabout, but the thrust of it is that the laws are very poorly worded so that his interpretation is possible if not inevitable.

 

After all, L18B1b does read:

 

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in

question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given

serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of

whom it is judged some might select it.

 

Custom and practice may use what virtually all of us would agree is the "correct" approach, but the legal basis is uncertain at best.

[barmar]

I am pretty sure that Lamford does not believe that that is how UI laws "should" be applied. His argument is, as usual, pretty roundabout, but the thrust of it is that the laws are very poorly worded so that his interpretation is possible if not inevitable.

I thought that his argument is that unless and until the laws are revised to say what is presumably intended, we must interpret them as literally written, and directors should follow that interpretation.

[Vampyr]

I thought that his argument is that unless and until the laws are revised to say what is presumably intended, we must interpret them as literally written, and directors should follow that interpretation.

 

That I'm not sure about, but there is a strong argument to be made that we should follow the laws as written, rather than deciding what is presumably intended and following it, while ignoring the written word.

 

Otherwise, why stop at L16? We could do it for the entire book.

[pran]

That I'm not sure about, but there is a strong argument to be made that we should follow the laws as written, rather than deciding what is presumably intended and following it, while ignoring the written word.

[...]

Fine, now:

(a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

and as his partner's explanations are indeed "extraneous information" to the player he may not from among logical alternatives choose one that could demonstrably have been suggested by partner's explanation over one that is suggested by the player's own mistake on the partnership understandings.

 

This is what the law literally says.

[Vampyr]

Fine, now:

 

and as his partner's explanations are indeed "extraneous information" to the player he may not from among logical alternatives choose one that could demonstrably have been suggested by partner's explanation over one that is suggested by the player's own mistake on the partnership understandings.

 

This is what the law literally says.

 

Quite. The problem is that we are instructed to base LAs on the methods of the partnership, not the misapprehension of the methods by one of the players. This is ridiculous, but it is what the law literally says.