[BLML] [Fwd: Re: Misinformation and UI?]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Aug 4 23:25:28 CEST 2009


On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:24:55 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Grattan wrote:
>
>> From: "Matthias Berghaus" <ziffbridge at t-online.de>
>>
>>  If I can no longer play KJT opposite Axx by
>> leading the jack and  watching what an opponent
>> does, that is a revolutionary change in the game.
>> Likewise if _anything_ an opponent voluntarily
>> does is not AI to me.
>>
>> +=+ There was a problem with 'mannerisms'. Not being
>> included in the law book Definitions, it had its dictionary
>> meaning. Some players thought they could understand it
>> to mean a single reaction or behavioural response to a
>> situation or an occurrence.  But this is not a mannerism.
>> To be a mannerism the dictionary requires that it conform
>> to the constant pattern of the individual's response to
>> situations or events, part of his style, a characteristic
>> peculiarity of manner.
>>        The word 'mannerisms' is now substituted with the
>> word 'traits' which even more clearly requires that what
>> the player relies on is characteristic of the opponent.
>>       L73D1 and L16A1(c) provide for the KJ10 ploy,
>> and see 73D2, 74C7. In this regard I do not see that
>> anything has changed from 1997.
>
> Say what?  This is getting more absurd by the minute (pun intended).
>
> I lead my jack towards my ace, LHO hitches before playing small, I
> choose to play him for the queen and run the jack.  Does Grattan
> really mean to say that this is legal only if my LHO regularly
> hitches over the jack with the queen (thus consitituting a "trait"),
> but is illegal, subject to L16 adjudication for "using UI" if he only
> hitched in this position just this once (thus not a "trait" or
> "mannerism").  That is what his first two paragraphs state.  I guess
> that must mean that I will be held responsible for knowing whether an
> opponent's apparent "tell" is or isn't sufficiently "characteristic"
> to constitute a "trait" any time I want to try to read a position by
> table feel.
>
> Plain common sense says that it is absolutely ridiculous to interpret
> L16 in such a way that one may be constrained by it due solely to an
> *opponent's* infraction or violation of correct procedure.  Under any
> circumstances.  Bridge cannot be played that way.

The flaw in L16A1 is that almost everything the opponents do is AI, but  
that law doesn't mentin that.

So you have to go digging through the laws, where you will find  
"Otherwise, to unintentionally vary the tempo or manner in which a call or  
play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from *such  
variation* may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own  
risk." (L73D1)

So you can draw inferences from the hitch. This doesn't say you can use  
those inference or that they are AI. But I think it is reasonable to take  
this phrase as approving any unintentional variations in tempo or manner  
that accompany a play as AI.

That still leaves (1) intentional variations in tempo or manner, and (2)  
variations in tempo or manner than do not accompany a call or play. So you  
really can't use the AI laws, you are better off just following common  
practice. IMO.




More information about the Blml mailing list