[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
.................
> >>> +=+ If the slave
> >>> has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement
> >>> that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave
> >>> has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has
> >>> committed himself to that partnership agreement. No
> >>> matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of
> >>> the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable
> >>> for the consequences of his ignorance.
> >> And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and
> >> misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find
> >> this a misbid? I don't!
> >>
> > +=+ Cries of "convention disruption"!
> >         But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must
> > explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2,
> > does not apply here.
> >                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 
> This is not really my argument, but Richard's.
> 
> Basically Richard says that if a Master makes a convention card, but
> the Slave forgets to read it, then there is not agreement, despite
> what the CC says. The TD should look at all the evidence and the CC is
> only one of those. But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I
> do agree with him, though.

The CC is a written declaration on your system agreements. Do I understand
your position correct that a player shall not be bound by what he has issued
in writing to his opponents on the ground that he has not read it?

A parallel situation would be that you deny being bound by a contract you
have signed because you haven't really read it before signing?

To me both positions sound ridiculous.

Sven