[BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Wed Nov 21 11:23:25 CET 2012


Le 20/11/2012 21:26, Eric Landau a écrit :
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau<ehaa at starpower.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau<ehaa at starpower.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-
>>>>>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club
>>>>>> for the first time. Your partnership's two-
>>>>>> minute system discussion resulted in an
>>>>>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matchpoint pairs
>>>>>> Dlr: North
>>>>>> Vul: All
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bidding has gone:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH
>>>>>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro
>>>>>> pard does not know your personal preferred
>>>>>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and
>>>>>> your semi-pro pard know that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social
>>>>>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp,
>>>>>> balanced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social
>>>>>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a
>>>>>> solid minor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You, South, hold:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J943
>>>>>> T7
>>>>>> KT8742
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT
>>>>>> bid do you give?
>>>>> "Undiscussed.  I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal
>>>>> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening.  But, both he and I know that
>>>>> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT
>>>>> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this
>>>>> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor."
>>>> What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then
>>>> which
>>>> one is right?
>>>>
>>>> And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a
>>>> different explanation. Are they both correct?
>>> Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement,
>>> (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the
>>> person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is
>>> "correct".  Probably both of them.
>> Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is typical)
>> and would have answered that way.
> That would have been MI.  The problem stipulated that 3NT was undiscussed (see (a) above).
>
> But we don't actually care what the "bidder assumed".  That's why the protocol is for his partner to respond to inquiries.
>
>> And the partner didn't know (as in the
>> story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as
>> director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid
> ...*in the absence of evidence to the contrary*.  When there is "evidence [the Director] is able to collect", he must rule "base[d]... on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the evidence", which makes the default presumption in the absence of evidence irrelevant.

AG : we are here in a rather uncommon case, where there are two very 
different meanings, and with roughly equal probability. Whence there is 
no default value. But this is not, IMOBO, the kind of situations hich 
L20 was made for.
On must accept those exceptional situations, and if they happen, "I 
don't know because we didn't discuss it" is indeed the right answer.


Or ... what abour answering "he wants to play 3NT. Why exactly I don't 
know" ?



More information about the Blml mailing list