[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> 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.
>
>   
It could happen. Here is a simple example.

Many pairs decide that when opponents use an artificial double of 1NT, 
then "system is on", while when double is penalties, they use some kind 
or artificial wriggle.
I'm not familiar with this treatment, but surely it is sensible.
Some also decide that "if they're uncertain about the meaning of the 
double, we treat it as artificial, because that's probably what they'll do".

So, if the player, behind screens, erroneously tells us partner's Dbl is 
strong, and it happens not to be, MI *and damage* will ensue, while if 
he correctly tells us "I guess it's strong, but I'm not sure", there 
could be MI, but most probably no damage in the bidding (and you can 
always ask the other player before playing the deal)..

Well, that's a peculiar case (albeit not that uncommon). But surely 
somebody as fond of propositional logic as you are will recognize that 
when there is but one counterexample to a "always" statement, then that 
.statement is false ;-)

Best regards

   Alain