[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
> it is this attitude which turns people away from the game. Konrad is 
> absolutely right in saying that if he has a 75/25 inkling as to what 
> his partner is trying to say, he should (at least) state the 75% 
> meaning. Some people will add they are uncertain, some people will add 
> the 25% meaning, but I feel that is merely adding information which is 
> not necessary.

There we go again. What you, I, the Pope or George W. Bush feel is if no 
importance. The law is clear. _Every_ bit of information is to be 
disclosed. So the explanation should be along the lines of "it could be 
A or B, and I could give estimates about probabilities, but you have to 
realize that these would indeed _be_ estimates, nothing more". Or words 
to that effect. Since the next bid will take the different possibilities 
and probabilities into account (indeed it will be based on them) the 
opps are entitled to every snippet of information you have.

>  If it turns out to be the 25% meaning, the TD will rule 
> exactly the same whether explainer had mentioned that other 
> alternative or not.
>   

He would not have to rule at all if you had mentioned it in the first place.

> But saying "no agreement" in cases like the one Konrad describes is 
> hideous. I will call it cheating, and I would not apologize for the 
> use of the word.
>   

I have no problem with that. If there is even a shade of implicit (let 
alone explicit) agreement or partnership experience one has to disclose it

>
>