[blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement

[Robert Frick]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:04:35 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

> Robert Frick a écrit :
>> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an
>> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to
>> distinguish. For example, I open 1H third seat not vulnerable with Kxxx  
>> of
>> hearts an no other HCP.
>>
>>
> That's the easy example. What do you think of the following one ?
>
> South opens 2H. On request, it is explained as a Dutch (!) two-suiter.
> South happens to hold a weak two-bid in hearts.

First, I am going to be upset if I am damaged when I think it is a  
two-suiter and it is really a weak two.

Am I supposed to choose between psyche or an unintentional misbid? In the  
U.S., I am positive it is a misbid. If it is common to make this psyche,  
then I will be upset because partner of the psycher is going to pick it up  
a lot easier than me.


>
> Would the Dutch decide there was misexplanation, even when the CC says
> the contrary ? Is this legal ?

Are we talking about the new Dutch laws? I think they are going to rule  
misexplanation. I am not the best person to ask about legality. I am  
guessing they are allowed to define Dutch words how they want. Also, they  
can probably clarify the evidence needed for judging misbid using Law 75.  
Otherwise, as shown on BLML, directors will vary. The ACBL feels it is  
entitled to define terms and state the evidence needed for a decision.

> And how do you intend to disallow South explaining he wanted to open a
> Multi 2D but took the next bidding card ? Or that he missorted his 63
> reds as 54 ?

I can't see the harm in ruling that these are misexplanations (and hence  
the opps should be protected). To be more precise, I cannot see the harm  
in categorizing them with misbids if you want to protect opps against the  
damaging effects of a misleading explanation of a misbid.

It should be well-accepted that the ruling of "misexplanation" can occur  
when there is really a misbid. This is a natural consequence of not being  
able to distinguish easily the two and placing the presumption on  
"misexplanation".

> And, above all, do they realize this will be a bonus on lying,

I assume the goal is to make it as difficult as possible for cheaters to  
prosper, while still creating good bridge for the majority of players who  
do not cheat. (In the U.S., players record their results on a card, often  
by placing the card face up in front of me on the table. So there seems to  
be little concern with preventing cheating here.)


> a lie
> that is very difficult to detect (contrary to the MI / MB issue, which
> can be settled by looking at their system notes) ?

My system notes are on my website, which will not be easy to consult. Not  
to mention my website is out-of-date. Not to mention it contains  
agreements that both my partner and I have forgotten. Also, the clearest  
sentence in the world does not establish an agreement because there could  
be a contradictory agreement elsewhere. Convention cards can also be out  
of date, but basically they will miss a lot of information.

The auction was 1S - X - 3C. The 3C bid was misleadingly explained by me  
as a weak jump shift, when in fact it was a Bergen raise. Convention card  
says Bergen raise. You decide. But I think Richard Hills will not like it  
that you are ignoring his testimony. And then you have the bonus on lying.

My testimony is that a month ago I specfically asked my partner if we were  
playing Bergen raises over a take-out double, and he said no. Now how do  
you rule? Of course, when I told the opps it was a weak-jump shift, I had  
a very solid idea in my mind that it could be a Bergen raise -- my first  
thought when I saw his bid was "That better not be a Bergen raise". My  
opponents do not know how easily my partners forgets agreements. He is a  
very good player, so they might assume he does not forget. I have seen him  
discuss an agreement just before game time and then forget it for the  
first round. Now how do you rule?

Bob