[blml] why no convention card?

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:
> 
> But it just proves my point: this happened once. All the other times, 
> your implicit agreements included "juniorish". You obviously 
> explained it as such. Which amounts to a full explanation.

Yes, it amounts to a full explanation - but there will be times when 
"juniorish" still includes two distinct possibilities and I won't be 
able to explain which one is more likely than the other (and neither 
will partner).
 
> Really, we are not that far apart. You pretend there are a small 
> number of cases where "undiscussed" is the truth, and you explain all 
> others fully.

I don't pretend.  I know.  Playing on-line with pick-up partners 
"undiscussed" is often the whole truth.  Sometimes "Undiscussed, but..." 
is the whole truth.

> I on the other hand believe that others than your 
> extremely ethical self explain far more cases as "undiscussed", when 
> such is not really the case.

And I don't disagree with that.  If a pair feels damaged because they 
felt an answer of "undiscussed" was inadequate I will always investigate 
whether there is information that could have been added.
If I find such information (and even it is only "partner usually plays 
at XXX where WJOs are pretty standard") I will then make a judgement as 
to whether the lack of additional information contributed to the 
damage.  I just don't feel the best way to deal with inadequate 
disclosure is to force players to state guesses as certainties.

> The differences then are left as twofold: your advice would be to 
> include the background, where I would leave that as optional; and my 
> advice would include the conclusion, where you would leave that 
> optional. 

My advice is to explain as best one can.  If there is a level of 
understanding indicative of a single conclusion the explanation will 
include that conclusion.  If there are two (or more) possible 
explanations one's best will be limited to explaining the background.

Tim