[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> 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.

Sorry Alain, you misunderstand. of course you should have explained, 
and I trust you did.
I was replying to Eric, who said this was not "system". So I asked him 
(rhetorically) if he would accept that this were not explained to the 
opponents.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.


> 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.
> 

Alain, you explained it - why then are you criticizing me for saying 
that you should explain it?

OK, maybe you were in a situation where the laws did not explicitely 
tell you that it should have been explained.

But what would have happened if you hadn't explained it? You would 
have bid 3Di (apparently supporting you partner's part-natural 2Di) on 
a singleton diamond. Your partner would have guessed at the meaning, 
and selected the correct contract (his own second suit, knowing you'd 
have a fit there). Neither of you would have explained that you'd have 
a singleton diamond, and yet both of you knew (or at least suspected) 
it. And then the opponents complain and the Director is called. You 
explain to him that you'd never talked about this sequence. What is 
the TD to do? Trust you and accept your story? Or say "at least you 
could have told the opponents of your guess, so I'm going to rule MI".

So maybe the laws do not say you should have explained, but the TD 
will rule as if you have an agreement anyway - so are you not better 
off explaining it?

It's all good and well to say that only firm agreements have to be 
explained, but how are you going to prove that a particular agreement 
(that you seem to have) is not "firm".

Which is why I give the advice to also explain "guesses".

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