[blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Frick]

I agree. I call this the "My bid means what I think it means" illusion. It  
will come up in real life communication all of the time -- the next time  
someone is ambiguous, note how blissfully unaware they are of the  
ambiguity.

So IF the goal is to tell the opps the true correct meaning of a bid given  
partnership agreements, partner will probably tend to do a better job in  
the long run than the bidder.

This does not resolve the partner's obligations to reveal all agreements,  
meta-agreements, etc. that bidder might have used. And it is difficult to  
show that the "my bid means what I think means" illusion has occurred, as  
you will know if you have ever tried to explain it to partner when you  
think he/she has done it.

Bob


On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:19:53 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Herman De Wael:
>
>> Your opponents are entitled to know your partner was asking for
>> minors. How you find out what you are going to tell them is your
>> problem - but if you tell them anything else, they are
>> misinformed.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> My esteemed interlocutor is obviously a newbie Director, who has
> yet to comprehend the 2007 Law 40A3:
>
> "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement
> provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed
> partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)."
>
> In other words, a first-time unilateral action by _one_ partner
> is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of _both_ partners.
>
> Herman De Wael:
>
>> The real agreement cannot be "no agreement", since your partner
>> used a conventional bid with clear intent.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The road to hell is paved with good conventions.  My esteemed
> interlocutor is obviously a newbie logician, since he uses
> unsubstantiated and irrelevant assertions to bolster his case.
>
> Bridge players choose non-systemic calls all the time at the
> table, in the fond but false belief that they are systemic.
>
> One common example is the Chameleon System:
>
> (a) in a particular auction, a player looks at their own cards,
> then doubles, thinking that their double is obviously penalties,
>
> but
>
> (b) some time later, in the same particular auction, the same
> player looks at their own cards, then doubles, thinking that
> their double is obviously takeout.
>
> That player made the classic mistake of assuming that their
> unilateral intention must be a mutual partnership understanding.
>
> My esteemed interlocutor has made the same classic mistake.
> However, if this newbie TD abandons his cherished but false
> opinions, instead following the advice of Ton Kooijman and
> Grattan Endicott, this newbie TD might eventually also become a
> respected and authoritative poster to blml.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills
> Graduates and Developmental Training Section
> Department of Immigration and Citizenship
> Telephone: 02 6223 9067
> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
>
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please  
> advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This  
> email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
> privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities  
> other
> than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
> has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
> privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at  
> www.immi.gov.au
> See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml