[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
> 
> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no 
> guarantee"  John
> 

Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve?

Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of 
conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. 
He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand 
and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI 
may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway 
the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so.

If the explanation does fit the hand - then why the need for the "no 
guarantee" bit? It might even induce the opponents into not believing 
the explanation too completely, and to cause damage as a result.

I always advice not to pronounce doubt, and I don't take it into 
consideration when selecting my own calls if the opponents say so 
(other than by doubling them for penalties now and again), nor do I do 
so when ruling.

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