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

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Matthias Berghaus:
> 
>> I have to support Herman, for a change. As Hans mentioned in the
>> meantime: written evidence can be doubtful, even misleading.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> If that is Herman's intent, then I too am supporting Herman for a
> change.  But that is not exactly consistent with what Herman
> actually wrote.
> 

I happen to agree with Matthias' summary of my position.
Too often, we see directors (and the Dutch NAC) succumb to the pleas 
from various players to see certain types of misbid punished. They 
invent all sorts of ways to do this, most of them illegal.
Rather, they should go back to the evidence that is being presented 
and look at it from a certain light: quite often, they will discover 
some form of misinformation that they can present to the non-offending 
side: "if you had known this ..., would you have ...". Very often, 
giving a little more information about (p)OS' methods will settle the 
case - even with the extra information, NOS would have acted the same way.

Example: someone is playing 5-card majors, but opens on a 4-card suit.
Opponents start argueing. Some TDs will read the CC and say "correct 
explanation". Other TDs will say "I don't care about CC's - prima 
facie evidence of MI". Neither of them are right.
The TD should investigate and arrive at the conclusion that this 
player may well open a 4-card suit 0/1/5/10% of the time. He should 
then say to NOS: "if you had known that it could have been a 4-card 
suit that seldom, would you have acted differently?". I dare say that 
in the bidding this is almost never the case, but it could be in the play.

> Matthias Berghaus:
> 
>> I do not think that Herman advocates dismissing the CC as
>> meaningless, but he knows that it does not always tell all of
>> the truth, for example history of misbids.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Again, I agree.  My previous posting emphasised the point "in the
> absence of counterweighting evidence".  The points of difference
> as I see them are:
> 
> (a) John (MadDog) Probst and I ask the player if they have a
> history of misbids.  If the answer is "No" we rule misbid rather
> than implicit understanding (unless we or a TD colleague have
> counterweighting evidence about the player in question).
> 

It might not be a "misbid". It might be a tactical bid. But I suspect 
that is encompassed in the question.

> (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's
> intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone
> (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced
> by written evidence plus additional evidence.
> 

Well, the bid that is on the table is counterweighing evidence, no?

> (c) The Dutch National Appeals Committee will not be convinced by
> any evidence that a misbid has occurred;
> 

And they are wrong, of course.

> Matthias Berghaus:
> 
>> We have a pair that just now invents a new bidding system.  The
>> process is not finished (and will not be for some time, I have
>> done something similar some years ago, even if my partnership
>> didn't start from scratch), so at the moment there are a lot of
>> CCs around with marginally different dates of printing. Of
>> course they always use the newest CC, but from time to time
>> (rather sooner than later) one of them forgets that an older
>> agreement has been replaced, or rather they don't agree whether
>> this is the case. So the TD often rules MI, which they bear
>> gracefully.
> 
> 2007 Law 21B1(b):
> 
> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than
> Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills

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