[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> Eric Landau wrote:
>
>> 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.

So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving  
proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim  
no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's  
intention correctly.  The objective of full disclosure is to provide  
opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has.   
That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the  
area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same  
chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the  
perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain  
earlier.

Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your  
guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about  
your actual agreements?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net