[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

I agree wholeheartedly with David Burn and Hans Van Staveren on this 
point. If the agreements are dodgy, we should be able to rule 
misinformation. But if they are stable, it should be misbid.
The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence 
alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone 
overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the 
written evidence was substantiated by other evidence.

Hans van Staveren wrote:
> [DALB]
> 
> I am not sure what progress is likely to be made here. Suppose one proposed
> to address misbidding and misplaying concerns in instances where the
> confusion caused by mangling the auction and the play caused more damage to
> the non-manglers than to the manglers.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If on the other hand Mr Gordon proposes to do something about situations in
> which (a) a pair forgets its methods and (b) it thereby tells the opponents
> lies about what its methods actually are, and perhaps (c) it appears to
> weasel out of the consequences of having forgotten by taking some
> pusillanimous action, then more power to Mr Gordon's elbow. There was a case
> not long ago (it might even have been Hans van Staveren who raised it) where
> some chap opened 2H to "show" both majors on a 2=5=4=2 shape. Apparently he
> had "forgotten", and luckily his partner did not bid 4S and go nine down
> doubled; instead, the opponents could have made more spades (six) than they
> actually bid (four).
> 
> Well, if the chap could substantiate that the "actual partnership agreement"
> was that 2H showed hearts and spades, fair enough - just about, though it
> still stinks. If he opened 2H intending this as Muiderberg and then connived
> at some pretence that it showed hearts and spades, I would... well, I would
> see Robb Gordon's point if what he wanted to do was have the man executed.
> If you're going to play complicated stuff, you should know what it is you're
> playing; there really isn't much of an excuse for making the wrong opening
> bid.
> 
> [HvS]
> 
> Good, to the heart of the matter. Luckily I am more likely to get reason out
> of David than the whole of the Dutch NAC.
> 
> Let us start with his last paragraph. I could not agree more. If indeed
> their partnership agreements are dodgy, and they are trying to wriggle out,
> you could have them shot for all I care.
> 
> However, as human beings are human beings the following could also happen:
> 
> EW are a 5 year partnership. Their system is stable. 2H is weak in majors or
> some strong. However, for whatever reason (tiredness, lack of attention
> because of personal problems, general absent mindedness) West opens 2H with
> a Muiderberg. Now at this point in general EW are at a disadvantage. East
> will bid as if partner has at least 4 spades. West can never run from any
> high doubled spade contract because there is a good director present(and he
> is also a moral player). It just so happens that EW gain some (in this case
> slight) advantage, because of the lie of the cards.
> 
> Now in this case, according to me it is according to standing law and
> practice, and furthermore reasonable, that the score should stand.
> You are allowed to get lucky every now and then.
> 
> You could argue that the next year, anytime this particular West opens 2H in
> this partnership, his partner should press salt into his wounds by adding to
> his system explanation that partner has a history(1x) of forgetting.
> 
> I am still interested in any reasonable discussion about this subject,
> because it clearly rouses emotions. In an ideal world people would not
> forget their own agreements. But just look around you, it is not getting any
> better....
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html