[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> Alain, I know you, and I know you are a very ethical player. You seem 
> to regard this thread as a personal attack
May I be straightforward ?

When you call me unable to correctly use logical implications (which, 
after all, is my job), based on a wrong reading of my previous posts, I 
can't believe that you were unable to understand them, so the conclusion 
could be that you're a indeed bit turned against the guy who wrote them. 
I'm happy to read it isn't the case, so I'll repeat as clearly as 
possible, hoping it settles the problem :
 I do not, repeat, do not, equate "agreed" with "discussed", because 
"agreed" includes "inference from what was discussed or from 
meta-agreements" ; and for that reason, "agreement" shouldn't mean 
anything different from "that which was agreed upon" - and so much the 
better.
If I say to a friend that we meet tomorrow at 18:00, there is an 
inference that we won't (voluntarily) meet before unless said otherwise. 
That is agreed upon.  Even if we didn't discuss it.

> But most of the time it's a cop-out from pairs who don't realize that 
> even when they haven't agreed anything, they still have a lot of 
> partnership experience.
>
>   
And there comes a very interesting part of the problem : are you (or 
anybody) allowed to discard all claims of "I don't know" (you said 
yourself that the player shall prove his statement to the contrary, and 
that'll be very difficult), merely because your evaluation is that a 
substantial proportion of such claims are vitiated ?
My own experience is that people really don't know, very often so.


Best regards

  Alain