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

[Herman De Wael]

Sven Pran wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, they do.
But the first is really not fair: You are using the "contract", that 
you haven't read, not as something you are bound by, but as something 
you defend yourself with!

In fact what you are doing is this: you are misinforming opponents, 
and then you take a piece of paper and prove thereby that you have not 
been lying. When the piece of paper has never been read by the guy 
making the (supposedly wrong) bid.

I don't feel good by that. And I'm looking for something to counter 
this with. Why are you against me for wanting to have more "honest" 
bridge being played?



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