[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

John (MadDog) Probst wrote:
> ----- 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.

The same argument yet again. What is wrong with hiding my doubts to 
opponents? Have you never doubled someone because he said "I think 
..."? If he'd simply stated the same without the doubt, and you hadn't 
doubled, do you call the TD afterwards saying "he wasn't certain, but 
he acted as if he was and now I demand that we'll score the 
undertricks doubled.

You make the same mistake as in that other thread I won't mention. You 
call me a liar when I'm simply not revealing something my opponents 
have no entitlement to. You're wrong in that argument, and I resent 
that you use loaded words like lying in order to gain more credibility 
for an argument that simply does not hold water.


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