[BLML] Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Fri Jan 15 11:50:26 CET 2010

Richard, your logic is flawed. You start from the premise that I am 
doing something wrong, in order to prove that I am doing something wrong.

richard willey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Herman De Wael <Hermandw at skynet.be 
> <mailto:Hermandw at skynet.be>> wrote:
>     Because Richard bases his decision to call it systemic on two facts:
>     - the presumed frequency (I've done it often)
>     - the strict nature (I do it always)
> My decision making is based on a very simple principle:  Rules need to 
> be applied consistently.  Otherwise, you end up with chaos.
> Consider the following:
> Partnership A and B are both playing the Herman 1H opening.
> Partnership A goes to the regulatory committee and say
> "We are playing a conventional 1H opening that shows either hand type X 
> (a normal 1H opening) or hand type Y (and hand with 0-3 HCP and 
> precisely 3 Hearts)".  The regulatory committee looks at the rule book, 
> sees that this is an unlicensed convention, and bans them from playing 
> the method.

I would agree with this.
But ask yourself how this can happen. It can happen only when it is 
discussed, and when there has also been a discussion about what to do 
over a third-in-hand 1H opening. If the pair are so stupid as to decide 
to answer 4H when holding 11 points and 5 hearts, then their system is 
not worth a lot.

> Partnership B goes to the regulatory committee and describes the same 1H 
> opening using different vocabulary.  They state that their 1H opening 
> shows hand type X (a normal 1H opening) but they psyche 1H whenever they 
> hold a hand with 0-3 HCP and precisely 3 Hearts.  The regulatory 
> committee looks at the rule book, sees that a normal 1H opening is 
> licenses, and allows them to play their methods.

I would also agree with that. Provided the LC looks at the psyche and 
asks relevant questions about it, and about how the partner responds to 
third-in-hand 1H openings. If there is no mechanism to deal with this, I 
do not mind this LC allowing that psyche.

> Both partnership are employeeing precisely the same methods. 

No they are not.

> The only 
> difference is that one of the partnerships is providing an accurate 
> description of their methods while the other is involved in sophistry.  

No it is not. It tells precisely what they are doing.

> You don't want to create a system that provides an incentive for folks 
> to lie about their methods.  (And, to be very clear, I am directly 
> accusing you of lying about your methods so that you can play an illegal 
> convention)

Well, you cannot accuse me of lying if you've called it only sophistry 
before now.

> For what its worth, I understand your point that its unfair that you 
> might be punished because you are being honest about your bidding 
> proclivities.  (You've directly stated in the past that you'll simple 
> start lying about the frequency with which you open the weak 1H variant 
> or, alternatively, pass with one of these hands so you don't have to say 
> that you "always" open with the weak hand types.  -  You just do it 
> 99.9% of the time and someday, you might not do it once again).

And that would be fine to get out of you and your way of ruling. Which 
is just another proof that your ruling is stupid, since it depends on 
player's honesty in order to catch them.

> My reaction to that is simple:  The regulatory system has all sorts of 
> systems in place designed to deal with people who misrepresent their 
> actual agreements.  The case that you propose is no different than that 
> of a partnership who doesn't provide accurate disclosure regarding their 
> range, carding agreements, what have you...  The system presumes that 
> players are going to tell the truth.  When the system does identify that 
> individuals are cheating, it needs to deal with them harshly.

But once again, how can you identify patterns if all you have to go on 
is one occurence. I prefer to accept that something is a psyche, 
regarless of pattern or frequency, unless I can find evidence of 
systemic dealing by partner. Sort of the "red psyche" of the English.

> More importantly, when members of the rules making body seem to care 
> more about engaging in sophistry than they do about playing by the 
> rules, they should be given the boot - and damn quickly.  Out of 
> curiousity, are you actually allowed to direct serious events?  (I asked 
> some friends in Belgium and they said that you weren't)

Who said that? I direct all the top events in Belgium. I am a qualified 
director, classed by the EBL as NBO-director (there are 50 of those in 
Europe). I have completed the EBL exam three times in the past, and 
finished in the top-10 three times. I am going for a fourth shot in 
Sanremo in two weeks'.
I am not boasting but merely setting the record straight, OK?


More information about the Blml mailing list