[blml] De Whale

[Eric Landau]

At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote:

>But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case
>is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder
>has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that
>sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is
>no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the
>same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and
>there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are
>you going to believe them when they say "no agreement".

The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that 
even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H, 
they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which 
means that always believing them and never believing them are equally 
fallacious.  In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from 
the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if 
they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from 
Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time).  In effect, 
having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself.  In Tim's 
world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players have 
to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they claimed, 
and rule accordingly; that's their job.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607