[blml] Fect in the Laws

[Robert Frick]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:01:30 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> The ACBL has offered some good, practical advice to ordinary players
> who do not wish to be burdoned with detailed knowledge of the
> disclosure rules:  Tell them whatever you know about your agreements
> (implicit as well as explicit) that might be relevant.  Do your best
> to be as helpful as you can.  They are entitled to know as much about
> your bidding methods as you do.  However, do not reveal anything that
> you could not have known before you looked at your cards.
>
> On BLML, I argue about the jots and commas in the laws, but at the
> table I take the ACBL approach.  I recommend it to everyone.

A sensible answer.

Is it agreed that if the director is called in this situation, the ruling  
should be misexplanation rather than misbid? I am thinking that that (1)  
the presumption (by law) is misexplanation, (2) you have no evidence for  
misbid, and (3) you are already admitting to some misexplanation.