[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> > You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know
> > that you
> > have been given conflicting information.
> 
> Generally speaking, I would think, correct information is given by a
> complete explanation (including inferences not from GBK) of the
> partnership agreement. Anything else is, it seems to me,
> misinformation. Given that, can you provide an example of when, given
> 2 pieces of conflicting information, there has been no MI?

Of course when you have been given conflicting information you know that one
of them must be wrong. But you never get redress for misinformation; redress
is given for damage caused by misinformation. That is one reason why this
discussion has gone off tracks.

When you "know" from the CC that a particular call is conventional and
should be alerted but it is not then you have such conflicting information. 

If you base your subsequent actions on the assumption that the CC is wrong
because of the missing alert you would hardly ever receive any redress for
damage if it should develop that the player just forgot to alert.

But if the CC eventually is proven wrong and you are damaged because you
trusted the CC (and assumed that the player just forgot to alert) then I can
hardly imagine any Director denying you redress for damage.

So the answer is: I do not generally care too much about misinformation
other than as possible source for damage. And I am rather careful not to
rule damage to a player who bases his claim for redress on technicalities
alone.

 Regards Sven