[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote:
> 
>> Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a
>> singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that  
>> singleton was
>> their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid  
>> about what
>> his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit
>> puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid
>> available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their agreements
>> actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled
>> misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair making the
>> agreements to make sure they covered the bases.
> 
> Was it?  Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event  
> without having "covered the bases".  The notion that a pair is  
> "responsible" for doing so comes from Bobby Wolff's discredited  
> "convention disruption" theory, which has yet to be accepted or  
> implemented anywhere (and hopefully won't be).
> 

You misunderstand. They are not obliged to "cover the bases", but they 
are obliged to give complete information. If it turns out that there 
is a hole in their "expressions", they are guilty of misinformation.
They have a system, which is without holes, but they don't know it 
completely, and their expression is incomplete as a result.

Note that hans did not say that they are obliged to cover the bases, 
he said it was their responsability.

> If we make duplicate bridge a game just for pairs who have complete  
> and consistent bidding methods that they fully understand, what will  
> we do for customers?
> 

We don't, so we don't need to do anything. Remember that the opponents 
are customers as well!

> 
> Eric Landau

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