Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Tue Apr 1 14:44:15 CEST 2014

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.

And, if Kaplan was being logical and just finishing his own thought, he  
would have added this: When a player says his partner forgot the bid,  
there can be rectification for any damage caused by this irregularity.

Which lacks common sense, etc.

> 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/20140401/0bda03f2/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list