[blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 2 of 2)

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 3/12/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> At 22:42 11/03/2007 -0600, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
>
> >But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what
> >we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they
> >break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity
> >is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking
> >misleading questions. It is not.
>
> The guy who took my answers to mean this didn't read theù with all due care.
>

Well, it wasn't me.  I was quoting David Burn here.  I really wish
David would return to BLML!  However, on this issue I currently agree
with you completely.

> 2) some TDs and ACs have been known to demand that you take necessary steps to enquire when needed ("protecting yourself").

In the ACBL, I think we can safely substitute "most" for "some."  I
also believe that in the ACBL, underdescriptions of your agreements
increases, on average, your equity on the deal.  One of the clearest
examples here is a game try.

-Jerry Fusselman