[BLML] Popper goes the weasel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Mon Aug 10 01:20:19 CEST 2009


Karl Popper (1902-1994):

"No matter how many instances of white swans we may have
observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are
white."

Max Bavin, May 2009:

"The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among
a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction
of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible
hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with
the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and
recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish,
mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play
then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D
may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could
well have been different without assistance gained through the
insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has
been damaged)."

Lawful figleaf provided by these clauses of Laws 27B1(a) and (b):

"...in the Director's opinion...".

EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009:

>We (the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee) have agreed to adopt this
>approach. Herein are four examples of a more liberal policy in
>operation, which I hope will help clarify the issue.
>
>i), ii) and iii) are ALLOWED. iv) is NOT ALLOWED.

Richard Hills, August 10th 2009:

i) is NOT ALLOWED. ii), iii) and iv) are ALLOWED.

EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009:

>i)   West      North     East
>     1C        1S        1H (not having seen the 1S overcall)
>
>1H without the overcall shows 5+ HCP and 4+ hearts. East has the
>replacement bid of "double" available which also shows 5+ HCP and
>4+ hearts, so superficially all is well. However, a hand with
>(say) 4H & 5D would have responded 1D to 1C had there been no
>overcall, but would double after the overcall.

[snip]

Richard Hills, August 10th 2009:

A hand with five spades and four hearts would have responded 1S to
1C had there been no overcall, but would often double after the
overcall.  Since the distributional dissonances are of such high
frequency, I rule that i) is Not Allowed a Law 27B1 replacement
call, but instead a Law 27B2 replacement call applies.

EBU Law and Ethics Committee, May 19th 2009:

>iv)  West      North     East
>     2NT       Pass      2C
>
>East thought that he was responding to 1NT (in which case 2C
>would be Stayman). East has a replacement bid of 3C available
>which is also Stayman. A liberal approach will allow this change.
>However there are some hands which would use 3C Stayman which
>wouldn't have used 2C Stayman. Because of the possible difference
>in point ranges, the change IS NOT ALLOWED.

Richard Hills, August 10th 2009:

Firstly, there is not any minimum Milton Work point count required
for the use of Stayman.  If the responder to 1NT holds a complete
yarborough with four spades, four hearts, four diamonds, and one
club, then all the standard bidding textbooks recommend using
Stayman with the intent to pass whatever rebid partner makes.

Secondly, the argument of the majority of the EBU L&EC is
presumably that some of the time Stayman in response to 1NT will
be made with game-invitational values or better, so that the
weighted probabilistic HCP expectation of Stayman in response to
1NT is greater than the weighted probabilistic HCP expectation of
Stayman in response to 2NT.  Points-schmoints, so what?  If a
tiny difference in potential distribution does not preclude a non-
barring replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in cases ii) and iii),
why should a tiny weighted probabilistic HCP expectation preclude
a non-barring replacement call under Law 27B1(b) in this case iv)?

Thirdly, "...in the Director's opinion..." should in my opinion
take into account the Nature of the potential Law 27B1(b) non-
barring replacement call.  Stayman is technically a relay bid,
seizing captaincy of the auction, so even if Insufficient Stayman
provided significant UI to the 2NT opener, the opener would almost
always be unable to use that hypothetical UI.  Plus, still
available as a safety net is Law 27D:

"If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end
of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction
the outcome of the board could well have been different and in
consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he
shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to
recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board
had the insufficient bid not occurred."


Best wishes

R.J.B. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550
Telephone: 02 6223 8453
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Blml mailing list