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

[Herman De Wael]

Hans van Staveren wrote:
> [HdW]
> 
>> (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?
> 
> 
> [HvS]
> 
> Well, really I would say no here. Of course the bid is on the table, so it
> is nonsense to say the player will never bid what he bid with this hand,
> since he just did.
> 
> However from a directors point of view only agreements count. Both explicit
> and implicit. But even an implicit agreement has to start at some point, and
> if this is really the first time the deviation occurs there is no implicit
> agreement yet.
> 

The agreement could well be "baked into" the system. If I have 
systemic agreements to show hands A,B and C, but I happen to have hand 
D, which conforms to neither of those three, then the call that I do 
make "describes" hand D. Either I use the call that shows A (or B or 
C) and then my partner's explanation "A" is wrong, since it should be 
"A or D", or I use a fourth call, and then my partner's explanation 
"no agreement" is also wrong, since it should be "we have calls to 
describe A, B and C, so he must have another than those".

So even if I never have seen hand D in my life (like a 35-pointer, 
which happened last month in Lier), I can have implicit agreements 
about those.

But that is not important to the main discussion, on which we agree 
very well.

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