[BLML] Agreement or no agreement? That is the question. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Thomas Dehn blml at arcor.de
Tue Dec 14 21:38:37 CET 2010


Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Le 14/12/2010 12:56, Thomas Dehn a écrit :
> >
> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> >> Hans van Staveren:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>> "I don't know, partner is more system sure than I am, I would
> >>>> have to look this one up."
> >>>>
> >>>> And not the usual "O yeah sure, I forgot".
> >>>>
> >>>> Now the question is if I should accept the explanation to the
> >>>> opening leader as their agreement. If so, score stands, if
> >>>> not adjusted score.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are things to be said for both views.
> >> Peter Eidt:
> >>
> >>> Hi Hans,
> >>>
> >>> for me this one looks easy.
> >>>
> >>> You have a table explanation that is backed up by the system
> >>> book _and_ by partner's statement that the system book is _on_
> >>> (whatever there's written in it).
> >>>
> >>> So this means (for me) that the explanation on the crucial
> >>> side is the correct one and therefore score stands.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >> Richard Hills:
> >>
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> for me this one looks easy.
> >>
> >> You have a table explanation that a player has been too lazy to
> >> read page number 42 of the system notes.  A unilateral set of
> >> system notes written by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual
> >> understanding of both partners.
> >>
> >> So this means (for me) that the misexplanation on the crucial
> >> side is indeed an incorrect one (correct would have been "we do
> >> not have any partnership understanding, due to partner having
> >> been too lazy to read page 42 of the system notes) and therefore
> >> the score does not stand.
> >>
> >> What's the problem?
> >>
> >> The problem is that normally written evidence has greater weight
> >> than verbal evidence, but in this case the verbal evidence is
> >> the direct opposite of self-serving.
> > No, it is not that easy.
> >
> > There exist quite a few scenarios.
> >
> > One is
> > "It has to be somewhere in our system notes, but I never read it".
> > Then indeed one might rule that they do not have an agreement.
> >
> > Another one is
> > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I forgot.
> > Partner knows this part of the system better than I do".
> > Then they have an agreement, but one player forgot.
> > You might have an MI ruling because the player who forgot
> > cannot correctly explain to his screen mate, but you
> > should not rule that there is no agreement.
> >
> > Yes another one is
> > "We have agreed on what the meaning is, but I never
> > can remember".
> > Then again one might rule that they do not have an agreement.
> >
> AG : one big snag with this distinguo is that you're dependent on what 
> the potential offending side says to you. And they might have reasons to 
> lie. Do you believe them or do you believe what's written ?

Agree, there exist problems. But then there exist problems with
simply believing their system notes. For example, player A
easily might have a different copy of system notes than player B.

System notes are evidence of an agreement.
But just as with any other evidence, contradictory
stronger evidence can exist.


Thomas



More information about the Blml mailing list