[blml] De Whale

[Herman De Wael]

Brian Meadows wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:26:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Quoting Herman
>>>
>>> Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks
>>> what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while
>>> meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")?
>>>
>>> I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..."
>> So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is 
>> presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously 
>> tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to 
>> interpret his subsequent responses.  That sounds like deliberate and 
>> egregious generation of UI.  It is *precisely* the practice of adding 
>> "most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it 
>> as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and 
>> for the most part successfully) to stamp out.
>>
> 
> It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book...
> 
> <paste>
> 3.B.3.     A player should explain only the partnership
> agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner’s
> call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how
> the player intends to interpret it.
> </paste>

And this is not what I was saying.
I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it.
I say he should explain what he thinks it is.

Besides, this rule is just plain silly.

Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't 
remember what. By this rule I should be obliged to say "I don't 
remember", have my partner get UI, have the opponents get MI?
I'd rather choose (even by random), say "it's that", and if I remember 
correctly I have given no UI, no MI, and I haven't even shown to have 
broken the rule written above. Are you going to get a mind-reader in 
to determine that I willfully broke this regulation? And if you do 
find out, what are you going to rule? Insist on me getting it wrong? 
Write down a bottom anyway?
And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from 
saying what I think?
Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never 
followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). And you are 
going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be