[blml] De Whale

[Brian]

Herman De Wael wrote:
> Brian Meadows wrote:
>> 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.
> 

How often do you think that the two will be different, assuming an
honest player?

> Besides, this rule is just plain silly.
> 
I'm making no comment on that one - Eric stated that the ACBL was doing
much the same thing, I just posted to show that this time it's *not*
just the ACBL doing things their own way.

> 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?

That's what it says - and while I haven't played bridge in England since
I emigrated, my recollection is that this rule, in one form or another,
has been in place for quite some time. AFAIR previous wordings advised a
player to ask an opponent to consult the CC if there was a chance of it
being there.

> 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?

If I did have proof, I'd do exactly the same as with any other player
who insisted on breaking one of the SO's regulations. What I'd do
depends on how many times I know you've done it.

> And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from 
> saying what I think?

That, of course, is the obvious problem with the rule. At what point
does "I'm not sure" become "I don't know"? However, like it or not, the
rule is in place. For its justification in England and Wales, you'd have
to talk to someone on the EBU L&EC, I suspect.


> Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never 
> followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). 

I think you're wrong as regards the "never followed" bit. I think that
most players will do their best to follow the regulations imposed by
their NCBO, even though they think they're damn silly ones (and I've
done my fair share of that in the past). As for countries, it's three
and counting, and I hope I don't get angry mails from Anne about not
counting it as four...

And you are
> going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced.
> 
I'm not convinced that it's the right way to do things, Herman - as
above, you've mentioned the obvious flaw in this sort of rule. While
it's in place, though, if I ever play offline bridge again, whether in
England or the USA, I will do my best to follow the Laws and
regulations. If my NCBO explicitly tells me not to guess at a meaning,
then I won't, and I would hope that most other players will say the
same. And if partner gets UI, and opponents don't get the information to
which they're entitled, then maybe the resulting penalties will give me
the incentive to make damn sure I *do* know the answer next time.


Brian.