[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes


> 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, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of us are 
not. cheers John.
>
> -- 
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml