[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Guthrie]

[Herman De Wael]
While I agree with Nigel 100% (well, I'm going to disagree with
something, so I'd better make it only 99%), there is one thing he
needs to take into account:
If that clause ["bridge knowledge"] is indeed taken out of the laws, we 
get players calling the TD saying "he did not tell me ...", when such a 
thing would be general bridge knowledge under any definition. When I 
answer "Stayman", I am relying on my opponents knowing the term. I need 
a law that protects me from their later saying they do not know this, or
else I'll be forced to explain everything starting with "an ace being
worth 4 points, ...". No Nigel, that clause is needed; but as I said, I 
agree that it needs to be used with care.

[nigel]
Thank you Herman. Over this 1%, we must to agree to disagree. Take
your example.

If your explanation is correct, but your opponent does not understand it 
because you use *any* term (not just a *Bridge* term) that he does not 
understand, IMO, he is entitled to further elucidation. In particular, 
if an opponent says he not understand what "Stayman" means in a given 
bidding context, then, whatever the law says, IMO you are morally 
obliged to explain it.

I find it hard to imagine any problem that might arise if that 
rationalisation for prevarication were removed from the laws.