[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> But after working it out you do know what is in the holes. Take 
> Alain's 3Di example. Both he and his partner knew he was showing 4414. 
> OK, they had never talked about this before, but are you really 
> allowing him to keep this information from his opponents? Simply based 
> on his saying "we never talked about this"?
>
>   
Who said we didn't explain ? You're interpreting things once more.
But the disclosure was given "under all due reservations" because there 
was no sure thing.

Surely nobody will call "agreement" something that was never agreed 
upon, or my sense of etymology has let me down.

Remember, this example was not given to say one shouldn't explain, only 
to say that it was quite possible to know / guess *without* any agreement.

> No, because here we are not talking about guesses. We are talking 
> about certainties. 

I'm sorry, Sir. I have to inform you that there was no certainty at all.

> As to when a certainty descends into a guess, I'm 
> not certain, which is why I won't let Alain off the hook if he tells 
> me "I only guessed I was showing 4414", and his partner guesses the same.
>   
We guessed. We explained our guess. We said it was uncertain. What Law 
did we infringe, that will make you "not let us off the hook" ?
Remember, you need an infraction to penalize somebody.

Herman, I'm afraid you too often place your conception of the game above 
what is written in the Laws, and your personal interpretations of what 
happened above the facts that are given to you.
I can't agree, especially in this case where I know what happened.