[blml] De Whale

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:

> > It does.  Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the 
> > ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) 
> > but that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs.
> > 
> 
> Aha, but in that case it is not "undiscussed", it is merely "not 
> talked of". I realize that this seems like a strange statement, but 
> what I mean is that the meaning one player ascribes to it is fixed, 

That is irrelevant.  the fact one one player *believes* it to be a 
splinter is not the same as having an agreement that it is a splinter.
I've played with partners who think that AKx,KJ7xxx,x,AKx is a 3H rebid 
in the sequence 1H-1S-3H.  That's not something I'd agree to if you put 
a gun to my head (and not something any partner would do to me twice!).  
If asked what the bid showed I'd say "Undiscussed but we are playing 
Acol in which it shows a single-suited hand with good Hearts and about 
17/18 points - non-forcing."


> even if not known to his partner. We are then again out of the scope 
> of our discussion. In a case like this "either splinter or natural" 
> is simply a misstatement. It is splinter (even if partner is 
> genuinely unaware of the bidders misconceptions of globality).

> > What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it 
> > right despite the complete lack of agreement?
> > 
> 
> Because there are no such things as odds - only clues. 

Of course there are "odds" (or probabilities if you prefer).  If I have 
seven hearts the probabilities are that partner will have shortage 
there.  If I have short hearts the probability is that partner will have 
length.  That's basic stuff Herman.

> And those clues need to be disclosed. 

No - they do not.  If the clues partner has are a feature of the cards 
he was dealt he is under no obligation to reveal those clues to opps - 
indeed if he reveals those clues he is deliberately creating UI (which I 
believe a certain HdW considers illegal!).

> Yes, you are correct that if there are no 
> clues, your explanation "undiscussed" is authorized and complete. But 
> I want to stress that I find those circumstances extremely rare. Even 
> among the examples you have tried to come up with, there are very few 
> in which "undiscussed" will be accepted by the director at the end.

It doesn't matter what the director may (or may not) accept.  Disclosure 
isn't based on "what will win a ruling?" it is based on "what are our 
agreements (explicit or implicit), understandings and experience?".

Yes, it will be rare (in any but pick-up partnerships) that an 
explanation of "Undiscussed." is acceptable but explanations starting 
"Undiscussed, but..." are perfectly proper (and indeed required when the 
undiscussed bit is true).

Tim