Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Apr 1 14:40:40 CEST 2014

The idea of not rectifying is described as"tempting". By this, I think  
Kaplan means it is the ruling a director -- trying to be fair and  
equitable -- would like to make.

Now we can add logic to this. Kaplan is using the most primitive method of  
determining damage. There is a more sophisticated method that applies to  
this case. Using the more sophisticated method, there was no damage.

No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this ruling was wrong and  
makes the laws look bad.

I am not saying that the laws require making the decision that occurred.  
The problem is that the laws contain only the most primitive definition of  

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS  
<richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>> What about when the AI is correct?
>> Then is it always used at the player’s own risk?
>Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002:
>+=+ Please consider this:
>Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan,
> Oct 8, 1989.
>Dear Mr Krishnan,
>Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling
> in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer
> explained to her screenmate, who would be the
> opening leader, that her response to Exclusion
> Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed
> hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as
> correctly explained on the other side of the screen
> actually promised zero (or three) aces by
> partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening
> leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would
> have defeated the contract.
>It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was
> wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told
> the number of aces in declarer’s hand, so what harm
> was done? That reasoning may be common sense
> but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may
> require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she
> holds, but bridge law requires something quite
> different: declarer must give her opponent an
> accurate explanation of the partnership agreement.
> She didn’t. Of course it is inevitable that a player
> who forgets her agreement behind a screen will
> break the law by giving a mistaken explanation.
> She will be morally blameless, since she explains in
> all honesty and good faith, but what the law
> demands of the explanation is not good faith, the
> law demands accuracy.
>Declarer’s inaccurate though honest explanation
> was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough
> to determine the director’s ruling, since information
> about aces obviously might affect the decision
> whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee’s
> ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely
> unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that
> the opening lead would have been different had the
> opening leader been given the accurate explanation
> (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate
> explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was
> far from convinced that the one-ace explanation
> would have induced the singleton lead (had it been
> convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six
> down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a
> small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the
> Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps,
> “average plus” to the innocent team.
>Note that the strange circumstances of this case
> arose only because of a screen procedure, where a
> player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd
> requirement that she give an accurate explanation
> of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The
> closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens,
> is the position in which you know that your partner
> has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four
> clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart
> opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you
> hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is
> obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the
> agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.
> First though, your right-hand opponent asks about
> the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be “Strong
> four hearts opening with a very good heart suit”. That
> is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your
> partnership agreement, not your partner’s hand. That
> legal obligation remains the same when, behind
> screens, you must explain your own action.
> I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you.
> Edgar Kaplan.
> Oct. 8th 1989.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ~ Grattan ~
> +=+
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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. DIBP 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140401/0799b8af/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list