[blml] De Whale

[Brian]

Eric Landau wrote:
> At 08:24 AM 4/18/07, Brian wrote:
> 
>> Herman De Wael wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> If you are 95% certain, why would you want to say either "I'm not sure" 
> or "I don't know", as opposed to saying (gasp!) "I am 95% certain"?
> 
> Herman has told us what he thinks; he has not thought or written that 
> "he's not sure" or that "he doesn't know", but rather that "[he is] 
> only 95% certain".  Why *should* he refrain from saying what he thinks?
> 

Well the problem I see with it, Eric, is that the EBU has said that if
you don't know, you mustn't indicate how you're going to take it.

Let us say that you're asked to explain a bid and you're not sure about
its meaning. At what value of N does "It means XYZ but I'm only N% sure
of that" become "I don't really know but I'm going to take it as XYZ"?

> How is it that we so clearly and precisely convey our uncertainty -- 
> along with all the possibilities and relevant considerations -- to one 
> another in our posts, yet struggle so mightily to find a way to convey 
> the same information to our opponents at the table?
> 

Could it possibly be because we don't have an NCBO regulating what we
can and can't say on BLML?



Brian.