[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote:
> 
>> You're in a teams match.  The bidding proceeds
>>
>> 1D   3C    ??
>>
>> Your hand
>> S AQxx
>> H KTx
>> D xxx
>> C Qxx
>>
>> You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and
>> noted they are playing Ghestem.  LHO does not alert 3C's
>>
>> Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding,
>> why wake them up), it goes
>>
>>  ... All pass !!
>>
>> RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ...  3C - 2.  Any 
>> redress ?
> 
> I am going to listen and (hopefully) learn a bit more before I make 
> that decision, but, based on what Karel has said above, probably not.
> 
> "You" admit to having noted that the opponents' CC indicates that 3C 
> was Ghestem, and also to having noted that LHO's failure to alert 
> indicates that it is not.  Both cannot be correct, so you know yourself 
> to be in possession of contradictory information, and cannot expect 
> redress if you "misinform yourself" by choosing to believe one piece of 
> information while ignoring the other.
> 

OK, so you know one info (at least) is wrong. What are you to do?

> Since you are aware that not all of the information you have can be 
> correct, this is the obvious -- some might argue the only -- position 
> in which you are clearly obliged to "protect yourself" as a 
> precondition for redress.
> 

Protecting yourself is indeed (sort of) an obligation. But surely it 
cannot be an obligation if you are also informing your opponents of 
their misunderstanding. Revealing what you now know means giving them AI.

> You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you 
> abrogate any claim to have been misinformed.  You are perfectly 
> entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to 
> your advantage at the table.  That's the case here: you made a tactical 
> decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the 
> chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding.  In return, 
> you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the 
> point you knew for sure that you had been given some.  Nice 
> try.  Better luck next time.
> 

So what you are actually saying is this: if you do not read the CC, 
and simply rely on the spoken word (and this one is the wrong one), 
you are entitled to redress. But if you read the CC, you have three 
options: either you tell the opponents they've made a mistake, or you 
trust the spoken word and have no recourse to MI, or you trust the 
written word and have partner misunderstand your next call. Seems as 
if reading the CC does you more harm than good.
Surely this cannot be the case.



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