[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> 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 ;-)
> 

Yes Alain, but only if the logic is fully logical, not fuzzy like 
here. When I say "never" but I mean "almost never", giving a 
counter-example just proves my point. Do concede that the above 
example is rather contrived. It depends on people's agreement being 
"if they're sure, we play A, if they're not, we play B". Seems like a 
silly agreement to me, especially behind screens, where you can expect 
explanations to be consistent but not necessarily equal.

> Best regards
> 

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