[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> Herman De Wael a écrit :
>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>>
>> [skip]
>>   
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>     
>> Alain, as you well know, "I don't know", even when true, is MI in any 
>> case where a convention has been forgotten.
>>
>>   
> So all we need is a way to tell when it means "We didn't discuss it" and 
> when ti's "I've forgotten". In the second case, rule MI. In the first 
> case, allow guesses.
> It wouldn't be fair to say "you have to prove you didn't indeed discuss" 
> and thereafter brush aside all possible attemps to do so.
> 

The problem with that is that my point is trying to be that even when 
it's true that they did not discuss it, that does not mean there is no 
disclosable "system".
I find your 4414 example a very good one. Surely if one player bids a 
singleton, and the other understands it to mean support for any other 
suit, then there is some form of "understanding". And I am very well 
open to accepting the story that the bid never came up in discussion, 
but I don't believe that matters.

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