Re: Uno

Herman De Wael <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.games.bridge.laws
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Richard poses an interesting question: (I've deleted the rest without 
negative intent)

Richard Hills schreef:
>
> The question of Law is this: The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that an
> Alert / explanation from partner is authorised information for the
> purpose of a Law 25A correction "without pause for thought". But West,
> like many players, was unaware of his rights under Law 25A. Therefore
> once East bid 2H West could no longer correct his 2D opening bid. Thus
> presumably at the moment East bid 2H East's earlier Alert and
> explanation transmogrified into being UI to West.
>
> Hence was West's 3D an illegal call? Was West required to assume that
> the auction had proceeded 1D - pass - 2H (very weak with six hearts)? Or
> does Law 16A1(a) mean that West is entitled to know, by whatever means,
> that West opened the bidding with 2D? (Possibly relevant here is the
> "aids to his memory" Law 40C3(a).)
>

Aids to memory does not seem to apply here, since we don't use it in the 
millions of bidding sequences we make every single day. Aftere all, a 
player is entitled to ask what the bidding was at every turn, thus it 
seems logical to accept that the bidding cards that are on the table are 
AI at every single turn.

Therefore, when West notices his 2D bidding card, he is entitled to know 
what he has shown, even if he does not have that. Since he is allowed to 
remember his system (and if we believe that he mispulled, we should also 
believe that he knows his real system), he is also entitled to know what 
partner will believe he has shown. He is entitled to make every call he 
wishes, but he must abstain from showing by any other means than his 
call that he has made a previous mistake.

This just makes the problem for East even harder - how is he supposed to 
figure out that the mistake West made (he is allowed to know there was a 
mistake, but not which one) is precisely this one?
Therefore, every poll made will be flawed, as we cannot by any means 
tell the polled player (would we be allowed to call such a player a 
pollee ?) what the exact circumstances of the likely mistakes by partner 
are. As you saw, I imagined two such possible mistakes and it turned out 
to be a third one. A real partner will be more likely to pick the 
correct one. I knew of my partners which mistakes they were likely to 
make and which ones they had never made in their careers.

But interesting topic nevertheless.

Herman.

> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.