[blml] Réf. : Re: L20F1

[Alain Gottcheiner]

-------Message original-------
 
De : David Barton
I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where
the director was able to confirm the system agreements and
 
Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely
               innocent
 
Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible
               misunderstanding coming to light.
 
If North gives explanations without being asked to do so, Case B shall apply
 L72B and the whole caboodle.
 
If North explains on request, then we can't avoid cases of misunderstanding
prevention, but many of them will be avoided if we decide to use the deWael
principle. I know it's not in the rules, but it suppresses case B risks
altogether.
I have to declare that I used this principle twice in the last 6 months or
so, and in both cases, opponents, while a little baffled by the procedure,
considered it quite ethical. Perhaps it's time to suggest its use officially

 
Another idea would be to make provisions for written explanations by the
player making the bid (perhaps only on TD's request) when it appears that
one's partner hesitates about the meaning of former bids.
 
I'm sorry if I overlooked something in this thread ; due to change of
mailing software, I lost a number of mails.
 
Best regards
 
  Alain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 37976 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.gif