[blml] Réf. : why no convention card?

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> I acknowledge that answering "look at the CC" is a solution to some of 
> the examples given in this thread. But it's not the problem we were 
> answering. I believe that, as a player, I am entitled to answer with 
> my guess, rather than admit to my opponents and my partner that I 
> don't really know if I am right.
>   

Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the Laws? I 
cannot find it. I only find "agreements". What "entitles" you to answer 
with a guess (while at the same time carefully hiding this from your 
opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? This is a cheap 
charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. How about a slam 
investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points 
combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of 
trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not 
missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? You 
purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the 
system (and you know about that). You keep information away from your 
opps. So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you 
anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your 
agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in 
trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear 
up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away 
with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s 
hand correctly, didn`t you?
Bah.
In the Drury example you try to read partner`s response, guess at what 
pard thought your bid was, and then sell it as an "agreement"? Argh.

> Let me give one example of this. I ask for aces and get a reply, but 
> am not 100% certain about the answer scheme. Before the final pass, an 
> opponent asks me what the answer meant. I now have 2 possibilities:
>
> a) I answer "4/1, but I'm not sure" or some such
> b) I answer "4/1"
>
> There can be two situations:
>
> 1) partner indeed has 4/1 KC.
> 2) partner has 3/0 KC.
>
> That brings 4 combinations:
> in b1), there is nothing to rule. slam made.
> in b2), the slam goes down. Or if it is made, the opponents will have 
> trouble explaining why they should have doubled with the answer "3/0".
>
> in a1), there is again nothing to rule, since there is no MI
> in a2), not only does the slam go down, but the last opponent has had 
> a chance to double it, because he was tipped off about me not being 
> certain.
>
> Since a1) and b1) end up the same, I believe that the difference 
> between b1) and b2) makes it better for me to choose b).
>   

Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what 
is inside the laws, and what is outside. We do not play Bridge by making 
it better for ourselves. We play it by making sure opps learn about our 
agreements, we deal with any UI as it comes along and - if need be - we 
take our lumps right then and there if we cannot wriggle out of this 
mess inside the laws. WTP?

> I believe I am allowed this. Nothnig in the laws tells me that my 
> opponents are entitled to knowing about my doubts.
>   

And nothing tells you that you are entitled to put on a show, explaining 
"agreements" with confidence while you are torn in two by doubt. This is 
not the Oscars, you know? What is the problem with explaining your 
agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this 
bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way 
that partner has no useable UI? And if he has, so be it. Partner can 
handle it. If it restricts his choices, too bad. I should have read that 
script and remembered the agreement. If this restriction causes a bad 
score it is entirely my own fault, not the fault of the laws or the 
TD.Anyone who doesn`t get his act together, be it temporarily (we all 
have our blackouts) or habitually, deserves whatever score happens to 
him. May be a good lesson.