[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Robert Frick]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:06:51 -0400, Guthrie <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> wrote:

> [Eric Landau]
> One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that
> a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only
> either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not --
> and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all.
>
> [nige1]
> Eric Landau is correct:
>   - Some players are sure of their agreements.
>   - Most players are *never* certain of their agreements.
>   - In the past, many of us (like me) have tried to "guess right".
>   - It now seems that more players are adopting Eric's way out.



If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have an  
obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, etc.,  
which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete.

What happens if the director is called? Will you be able to provide  
evidence that partner misbid the hand? Due to a "fect" in the laws, the  
director's two choices are misbid and misexplanation. We know you didn't  
explain it fully enough. I don't know what "misbid" means here -- your  
partner thought you would understand the bid and you didn't? How are you  
going to get evidence for that (especially if you guess right)?

If you say what partner's bid means and you are right, the opps aren't  
injured.

Bob, who is new to this list and does not understand why everyone seems to  
be focusing on the laws concerning what you have to explain about  
partner's bid and ignoring what happens when the director is called to  
make a ruling.