[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Eric Landau]

At 02:23 AM 4/23/07, Herman wrote:

>richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> >>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in 
> the CC,
> >>> quite often in partnerships one player is The Master.  The Master 
> issues
> >>> the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention".  Then The
> > Master
> >>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC.  And meanwhile The Master's 
> partner
> >>> has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, 
> which
> >>> means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the 
> Hoffmeister
> >>> 1NT.
> >
> > Herman De Wael:
> >
> >> exactly.
> >>
> >> Richard, almost a DwS type argument!
> >
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> > No, unless by "almost" you mean "totally different".  Under the De Wael
> > School, determining whether or not a _mutual_ partnership agreement 
> exists
> > is solely dependent on what an _individual_ partner does.
>
>Yes, but both individuals together make up the partnership. So it is
>the partnership's actions which are being checked:
>
> > (a) If it is The Master who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards 
> consistent
> > with his Hoffmeister belief, Herman rules that both partners have a 
> mutual
> > partnership agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT.
>
>Indeed, an agreement which the slave has failed to misrepresent. I
>rule MI. The explanation will not fit the hand.
>
> > (b) If it is The Master's partner who is first to bid 1NT, holding 
> cards
> > consistent with her 16-18 hcp balanced belief, Herman rules that both
> > partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the strong 1NT.
>
>Indeed, and since the Master will explain it as Hoffmeister, the
>explanation will again be wrong. I rule MI.
>
> > (c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self-
> > incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule
> > under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any 
> mutual
> > partnership agreement.
>
>And rule MI.
>So where is the DwS different from the sensible one?
>
>Not different at all!

If there is damage from the MI, L12C2 requires the TD to ascertain what 
might have occured "had the irregularity not occurred".  For Herman, 
that would mean had the opponents been correctly informed as to the 
nature of the 1NT opening.  For Richard, that would mean had the 
opponents been correctly informed that there was no partnership 
agreement.  ISTM that could lead to rulings that were very different 
indeed.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607