[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Guthrie]

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation
that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods,
and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to
improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that
is equally available to opponents and to partner?
I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it.

[Nigel]
As expected, Grattan is right in law. Nevertheless, I agree with Herman 
de Wael that these inferences should be divulged. I go further than 
Herman. IMO.
  - There should be a law that forbids prevarication.
  - The "bridge knowledge" get-out should be expunged.

Some systems are like icebergs -- with many inferences hidden below the 
surface. Also, in any system, there are many points -
  - *implicit* in the system but derivable by logic
  - never before met or discussed.

Some BLMLers disingenuously argue that these inferences are equally 
available to opponents. That may be literally true. But we all know, 
that it is easier for a pair to make a valid deduction from *familiar* 
facts than from the same information on a *strange* system card. Also 
the deductions may be reached by familiar lines of reasoning, in accord 
with a shared philosophy, used in discussed agreements.

This travesty of justice would be mitigated, if the law-book explicitly 
recommended some variant of the Sven Pran question.

"What do your partner's calls systemically tell you about his hand".

Now at least, an explainer would be expected to winnow out those facts 
and agreements that would allow his opponent to painfully reach the same 
conclusiion, at which the explainer and his partner had already 
effortlessly arrived.

The opponent would still be at a disadvantage but now he would have a 
fighting chance.