[blml] Fect in the Laws

[Robert Frick]

>
> We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of
> disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call.
> While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies
> with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer,
> and therefore does not help us choose one over another.

Hi Eric. What do you think of this argument? Say your partner makes a bid  
and you give the wrong explanation or say you are not sure of the meaning.

If you and your partner have an explicit agreement about the meaning of  
your bid, then of course the opps deserve to hear it, even if you both  
have forgotten it and the proper ruling is misexplanation rather than  
misbid.

Same thing for implicit agreements, meta-agreements, inferences from the  
meanings of other bids in your system, and relevant past auctions that  
could be developing an implicit agreement, right? Opps have the right to  
hear it, it is misexplanation if they don't?

But in addition to the practical difficulties, you may be unable to report  
information your are using. I believe the opps also are entitled to this  
information if your partner used it.

Most of the time, a close-enough explanation will do. But when your  
partner thinks a bid has one meaning, and you don't know the meaning or  
get it wrong, that seems to be the situation where you are most likely to  
leave out relevant information.

The best you can do is a good-faith explanation of practical size, and I  
guess that is all the laws ask of you. But I don't think you will have  
good evidence against the ruling of misexplanation, since misexplanation  
has now become very likely, even if you cannot identify information you  
have left out.

Bob