[BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Aug 21 02:57:25 CEST 2013

Hi Herman. I just got a chance to study this.

Are the opponents entitled to a *correct description* of your partnership  
agreements? Or are they entitled to *know* the partnership agreements? I  
think most people, and the laws, go for the former.

Your argument requires the latter. Correct? If the player *said* his  
partners 2 Di bid was a "game force" and then passed, the opponent would  
not think he misunderstood the bid.

In your formulation, we imagine that he said nothing and the opponent  
somehow magically knew that 2 Di was a game force. Yes, in this case the  
opponent might assume he misunderstood. But is this how we rectify for  
mistaken explanation?

Of course, the laws are not clear, when we rectify for getting the right  
explanation, who gave that right explanation.


On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>  

> Robert Frick schreef:
>> 2.
>> 1D  P  2D  P
>>    P  X
>> 2D was described as a limit raise in diamonds. In fact, it was forcing  
>> to
>> game. East West end up in 3NT making 4. I asked South if she would have
>> done anything different, and in a shot she said she would not have
>> balanced if she had been given the correct explanation.
>> But, if she had been given the correct explanation *only*, she would  
>> have
>> concluded that the opening bidder psyched. Her balance was aggressive
>> (foolish?) anyway, so we would expect her to also balance over a psyche.
> Well, not necessarily. She is entitled to the information that 2D is GF,
> and to the knowledge that opener passed it. She may draw her
> conclusions, and it is quite possible to draw the conclusion that opener
> forgot the system, not psyched. In the light of her own weak hand, and
> partner's silence, she may well draw that conclusion, and I would
> probably rule the contract back to 2Di.
>> So the question is if I rule as if the defender heard *just* the correct
>> explanation, or both?
> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that
> that was the lawmakers' intention. Just the correct info, not the
> correct one AND the wrong one.
> I believe it to be very basically true that one is not entitled to the
> knowledge of a misunderstanding. If it is possible to deduce such a
> misunderstanding from the bidding (as here), then the AS should take
> this into account. If the bidding is quite possible under the correct
> explanation, then that is all one is entitled to.
>> I know many blmlers have argued strongly that I rectify for just the
>> correct explanation. Which means there is no penalty for violating  
>> L20F4.
> There is never a penalty for this. Only a rectification, to the score
> that would have occured without the infraction.
>> Or maybe this is just another L84B do what I want. My memory is that the
>> minutes don't answer this. (They are organized by year, of course, hence
>> not intended as a resource for directors trying to make a ruling.)
> Herman.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Wisdom is the beginning of seeing.

More information about the Blml mailing list