[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> 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"
When you say "never" and mean "almost never", that not logic, and that's 
very dangerous.