[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> ISTM that the pair in Hans's anecdote was as totally forthcoming  
> about their agreements as they could be.  To rule that they have  
> given MI based on the presumption that "they have a system, which is  
> without holes, but they don't know it completely", which appears to  
> be manifestly not true, is unfair to the point of absurdity.  I have  
> been playing EHAA for forty years, I wrote the definitive textbook on  
> the system, and I can assure you that it is not "without holes".  I'd  
> wager a beer that Messrs. Meckstroth and Rodwell, with their infamous  
> hundreds of pages of bidding notes, would never be so bold as to  
> claim that even their system is "without holes".
> 

But that is not the point.
The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, 
at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, 
and both partners understand what is happening because they know the 
area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no 
hole in the first place!
I firmly believe that in such cases, the opponents are entitled to 
know the area surrounding the hole to such a large degree that they 
are also able to understand the meaning of the call within the hole. 
It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so 
completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the 
conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves.
Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed 
something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are 
equally disclosable.

And that was the point we were trying to make.
Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not 
alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the 
holes and the holes.

> 
> Eric Landau


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