Re: Indexing, The Art of

Jan Peach:

[big snip]

I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any
difference.

Richard Hills:

In an uncontested auction the non-bidding side does not need to know an
accurate explanation of the opposing partnership understandings until the
Clarification Period. (Although one Futile Willie has argued that he
wants to ask a question whenever it is his turn to call. This approach
might be an infraction of the new 2017 Law 20G2, which prohibits a player
from asking a question when his sole intent is to elicit an incorrect
explanation.)

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Monday, March 6, 2017, Jan Peach <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> ------ Original Message ------
> On Monday, 6 Mar, 2017 At 1:29 PM, Richard Hills<[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>
> Jan Peach:
>
> Where do you get 50% from, Richard?
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Out of my own fertile (and entirely unofficial) imagination.
>
> Jan Peach:
>
> "Becomes aware of his own mistake" sounds like a 100% mistake and I don't
> readily see why opponents shouldn't be told immediately about 100%
> mistakes, as a "must do".
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> An immediate correction of a player's own misexplanation is still a
> permitted option under the new 2017 Laws 20F4 / 75.
>
> Jan Peach:
>
> Far better to get normal table results than leaving it to the director
> later.
>
> Some additional waffle for when a player is merely wondering whether he
> has gotten it wrong is no doubt fine but I can't read that into the current
> wording.
> I don't see creation of UI as the big problem. The problem with saying,
> eg, "I said it was weak spades but I might be wrong and it's hearts and
> clubs," is that the opponents can't know whether partner is calling over
> weak spades or hearts and clubs. I agree better to keep quiet if not 100%
> sure of an error.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The issue is not to "get normal table results". Many years ago the
> American expert partnership of Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles very
> scientifically reached a grand slam in clubs with a Trump suit of AKx
> opposite a void.
>
> And the issue is not "to keep quiet", which may be a Misinformation
> infraction.
>
> Rather the issue, in my highly unofficial opinion, is to have an
> uncontested auction correctly explained during the Clarification Period
> without having the earlier auction poisoned by unnecessarily large amounts
> of UI.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> snip
>
> Jan:
> Protecting infractors is not on my wish list. As you allude to elsewhere,
> the WBFLC has already clarified that creating UI by carrying out one's
> obligations is not an infraction. I trust that electing to correct one's
> own mis-explanation asap during the auction will still be covered by that
> minute.
>
> FWIW I think most will correct immediately. Judgement rulings don't always
> help infractors though sadly the tendency is to expect non-offenders to
> land on their feet in the dark. Keeping quiet until the end of the auctiin
> may be worth the gamble.
>
> Increasing judgement rulings at club level may even help the game. Nothing
> like experience to improve.
>
> I don't see that being a contested auction or uncontested makes any
> difference.
>
> If I have understood correctly, choosing to keep quiet during the auction
> when certain that one has given wrong information will not be an infraction.
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml