[BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Wed Nov 7 17:50:27 CET 2012


Le 7/11/2012 17:20, Nigel Guthrie a écrit :
>
> [Eric Landau]
> If you think Flannery is the most likely meaning, but you also think that
> there is some significant possibility that it might have been intended as a
> weak two, and you will take this into account in choosing your subsequent
> calls, then "such waffle" may indeed make your explanation less
> comprehensible, but claiming that it is definitively Flannery will make your
> *auction* less comprehensible.  Choosing the latter is therefore not just
> MI, but *deliberate* MI.
>
> [Nige2]
> Under current law, I agree with Eric that if you guess, you are guilty of
> MI. But I don't see why you should be.  Under current law, when you are
> *sure* of your agreement but fear that partner may have forgotten, you can
> take that into account when making subsequent calls. In that case, Eric must
> admit, you're *not* guilty of MI.
AG : my views exactly. And I had begun to wrtie Namyats as a possible 
example when I saw the lines hereunder.
Indeed you should not guess. Whence the factt that it would be MI in 
another life is irrelevant tot the discussion, and Eric has 
misunderstood me.
>
> Another case I remember from BLML. Partner opens 4C. Your agreement (since
> yesterday) is that it shows solid hearts. You are looking at AQ of hearts.
> You deduce that partner has mis-sorted his red-suits or forgotten.  You
> reckon the latter is more likely (your previous agreement was natural). You
> decide to pass but before you do so, RHO asks what 4C means.  It feels wrong
> to say "Solid hearts", when
> (A) You know your *previous* agreement but RHO does not. (i.e. If partner
> has made a mistake, you know what it is likely to be -- not Gerber, or a
> transfer to diamonds, or a major two-suiter, or whatever)
> (B) You are about to pass.
>
> Nevertheless, I think that is what you do, according to the law.




More information about the Blml mailing list