[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Karel]

Good to see this inspired such a debate.  Not going to start quoting
laws right left and center ... just a few observations.

The CC is written.  At the point of being obvious .. this implies
someone spent energy and time physically writing down an agreement.
It is beyond belief to think that they would at this point write down
the wrong agreement.  So ... when the CC was created ... that was the
pairs agreement.  If anything after that changed ... it should have
been reflected in the CC.

It is common practice I believe when declarer to look at a pairs CC
regarding their lead style or their openings, carding etc etc.  This
allows you to get the information without asking the opponents and
then getting them to wonder why this information would be pertinent to
you and possibly work out why you wish this information to their
benefit.

You absolutely have to believe what is on the CC is correct or else
you go down the ludicrous scenario of aking the opps to verify every
agreement on the CC.

So if it goes 1D   3C and you look at the CC and it says Ghestem that
is their agreement ... end of story.  If at this stage you suspect the
opps have forgotten their agreement - it is ludicrous to state you
have to ask the opps .. .
" erhh very sorry is the agreement on YOUR CC actually correct as
erhhh there wasnt an alert and maybe you got it wrong ... btw I have
to ask this in case you are screwing up to protect myself !!!"
"Why thank you so much young man, I was dozing off there ... "


In the actual case btw the responder to the ghestem was looking at 5/5
in the majors.  Now the odds of it going 1D  3C (both majors)  Pass
(when the opps have a massive double minor fit and you are looking at
5/5 as against the far more statistically likely pd forgot) .... so
you pass ... no one asks (why should they ?? it is on the CC), lo and
behold you are right and no one knows any different ..... and
apparently this is ok ...

That was the actual case - I have no proof to any mind reading or
second guessing pd's state, but there can be no argument that the CC
is the definitive agreement and the opps are completely entitled to
believe it and should it transpire that the opps are infact playing
something else ... then surely redress is in order.

Karel



On 4/21/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>