[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk [following address
> discontinued: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] 
> ************************* "We live in an environment whose 
> principal product is garbage." Russell Baker ('New York Times') 
> ************************* ----- Original Message ----- From:
> "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing
> List" <blml at amsterdamned.org> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:09 AM 
> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes
> 
> 
>> You would be right in saying that as an inference, this is not 
>> disclosable. But the things the inference is based on, are not
>> common knowledge. So Alain needs to explain to his opponents
>> three things: A) the meaning of the bids 3He to 4Cl; b) the fact
>> that 3Di is undiscussed and non-existant and c) the fact that
>> both players are creative enough to find a sensible meaning for
>> it.
> ...........................................................................................................
>  +=+ Up to this point, Herman, you were doing very well. All
> relevant matters of prior partnership understandings and experience
> are to be disclosed. And then, Herman, you overstretched  with
> this: 
> .............................................................................................................
> 
>> From those - disclosable- elements opponent could work out that 
>> it has to be 4414. However, if the opponent does not work it out,
>> that means it is not "general knowledge" and so Alain should have
>> explained the inference as well.
>> 
> +=+ If the opponent has been given all the ingredients we do not
> have to bake his cake for him. It does not mean the opponent lacks
> the 'general knowledge' - it means that there is a difference in
> the skills of the opponent by comparison with the player and his
> partner.

There is a fine line between the lack of skills and the lack of
necessary information. When I tell Alain's story, I am not confident
that the conclusion "4414" follows from the things I have been told,
such as "partner has 44 diamonds and another and my bids all show
4-card support and singleton named". I guess there are a number of
other considerations that Alain took into account before concluding
what he did. He should of course also tell those considerations. Given
all those, the opponents should be able to work it out, but are we
playing Sudoku or Bridge? Any set of numbers will produce only one
full Sudoku grid, but is that full disclosure? Not the way I see it.

I am abhorred at the way some people describe some agreements. Even
when they have worked them out in advance, they fail to give complete
descriptions, relying on - you can work that out.

Last week, I was chastised for not adding a point range to my
explanation of my partner's bid. When I said "simply wants to play
3NT", my opponent explained to me that this had to be with 18-19,
since with 16-17 the bidding had to have been different. She knew my
system better than I did, and was mad that I had not simpl;y said
18-19. I had never drawn the conclusion that it had to have been
18-19, but I agreed with her, I should have said it like that.

> ~ Grattan ~   +=+


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