[blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Frick]

Suppose you and your partner have no agreements about a call, no relevant  
meta-agreements, and no relevant previous auction. Your partner explains  
your bid as "no agreement".

I think the laws completely support you.

Until the director comes to the table to make a ruling on misinformation  
versus misexplanation. You patiently explain to the director that you  
cannot have evidence for the absence of a conversation, meta-agreement, or  
auction. The director nods sympathetically, reads you the law, and rules  
against you. ("but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather  
than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.")

Okay, I don't know what the director will really rule. This is probably  
one of the best examples you can give for breaking my "The opps deserve to  
know what my bid means even if my partner doesn't." But unless you want to  
outguess the director, the safest thing -- and probably the most enjoyable  
for you and the opps -- is to tell them what your bid meant (as soon as  
that is legal).