[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> 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?

Although admittedly redundant, "no guarantee" serves to call  
attention to the fact that you have said "our meta-agreements suggest  
it could be" rather than "we have agreeed that it is".

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

That would be true if the explanation was, "It is [this]".  It  
manifestly wasn't.  John's explanation is "right" if his meta- 
agreements suggest it could be "this", and wrong if his meta- 
agreements do not so suggest.  Whether it constitutes proper  
disclosure depends not on whether it is right or wrong as to what the  
meta-agreements suggest, but whether it has correctly and completely  
described the relevant meta-agreements.

> 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.

John professes to have no agreement, and has so informed his  
opponents.  Yet Herman would presume at the outset, for purposes of  
his investigation, that John is lying, and will rule accordingly  
unless John can "prove otherwise".  Even though Herman readily admits  
that it will be "very hard" for John to do so.  Herman would not last  
very long as a TD doing this anywhere I play.

> Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway
> the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so.

Sure... well, OK, it's only a redundancy, but "our meta-agreements  
suggest" (as opposed to "our agreement is") very well might, and  
should.  Sometimes a more experienced (or talented) opponent may be  
in a better position that a less experienced explainer to decide what  
those "meta-agreements suggest", and so he is responsible for doing  
so.  If he chooses to blindly accept a suggestion of an incorrect  
inference over an obviously available but overlooked one he does so  
at his own risk.  He will get no sympathy from me with, "But Herman  
says that when someone says, 'No agreement, our meta-agreements  
suggest that it could be this, but I give no guarantee,' I'm allowed  
to pretend that what he actually said was, 'We have a definite  
agreement that it is this, 100% guaranteed'".  Sorry, but to me those  
are  *not* identical explanations.


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