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

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Wed Aug 21 09:31:20 CEST 2013

Hello Bob, all,

Robert Frick schreef:
> 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.

I don't really see the difference between the two. They are entitled to 
"know" what a "correct description" of the agreements are.

I prefer the "know" phrase myself, since I would, for example, not rule 
in favour of a player who tells me he knew what the agreement was but 
did not receive a correct description from his opponents.

> 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.

Well, that would be a very strange occurrence, would it not?
I like the idea of the "Kaplan engine", which is a hyoothetical device 
that tells opponents what the system is, without any inteference from 
the bidders themselves. If a bid is explained (by such a device) as game 
forcing and then passed, it is up to the opponents to conclude that the 
partner probably did not understand.

> 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?

Yes, it is how I believe we should act. Of course there might be another 
explanation for the pass (10 diamonds to the jack and three twos?), but 
the "benefit of the doubt" will make opponents assume the misunderstanding.

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


More information about the Blml mailing list