[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Robert Frick wrote:

> There seems to be a defect in the laws. They assume that when an
> explanation of a bid is wrong, there was either a misexplanation of  
> the
> partnership agreement or a failure to follow the partnership  
> agreement.

They assume that when a properly offered explanation of a bid is  
wrong, it is due to either a misexplanation of the actual agreement  
or a deviation from it.  The latter may be either deliberate or a  
"misbid".

> There is a very common third possibility,

The common third possibility is that they do not in fact have an  
agreement.  In that case, they should not have offered to explain  
what doesn't exist.

> that one player thought a bid
> had one meaning and the other player thought it had a different  
> meaning.

Understanding that for disclosure purposes we must read "had a  
meaning" as "had an *agreed* meaning", it is incumbent upon the TD to  
determine who got it right: the bidder (misexplanation, L75B), the  
explainer (misbid, L75C), or neither (presumed misexplanation, L75C  
parenthetical).

> This is fairly common in partnerships that do not play together  
> often. For
> example, the auction was 2C (strong, artificial) - X - XX. One player
> decided that the XX was strong; the other decided that it was weak.
>
> The laws do not say, ethically, what the players should do.

They should call the director at the appropriate time per L20F4-5 and  
let him sort it out.

> Procedurally,
> "misexplanation" will be assumed (even though it is not true).

Not by a competent director, who will investigate the facts and make  
a finding.  He need make no a priori presumption.  If he decides that  
the explanation corresponded with the partnership's actual agreement  
he will find misbid rather than misexplanation.  He will find  
misexplanation if the explanation did not correspond with the  
partnership's actual agreement, either because it differs from the  
actual agreement, or because there is no actual agreement for it to  
correspond to -- very different circumstances which happen lead to  
the same ruling.

> So I have come to the conclusion that the opps have a right to know  
> what
> conventions I use when I bid, whether or not my partner does. Unless I
> know I have made a mistake, I always explain (at my first opportunity)
> what I meant my bid to mean. This protects me, but I believe it is  
> also
> the right thing to do.

"Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership  
understandings to opponents" [L40a1(b)].  Swear to disclose your  
partnership understandings, your whole partnership understandings,  
and nothing but your partnership understandings, so help ye God.  If  
you are troubled by the inability to find the line between  
"partnership understanding" and "what I meant my bid to mean", do  
your best for the moment, call the director at the appropriate time  
per L20F4-5, and let him sort it out.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net