[BLML] Thursday Aug. 8, just following the rules when I can
rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Aug 21 20:43:18 CEST 2013
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> Robert Frick schreef:
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
>>> It is very clear from all the circumstancial evidence in the laws that
>>> that was the lawmakers' intention...
>> I really liked this sentence. I am hoping that in 2017, things are clear
>> (one way or another) because the law says it.
>>> 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 have a question.
>> Suppose Player 1 gives a wrong explanation. Then Player 2 correct it
>> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information,
> It is clear from the laws that the restriction on not being entitled to
> know about the misunderstanding ends at the end of the auction. I can
> live with that distinction. (I cannot live with the entitlement coming
> to a beginning one instant sooner and the bidding being reopened, but
> that's another matter).
>> Now, suppose Player 2 instead does not correct the wrong explanation.
>> Isn't that a separate infraction? And don't we correct here for what
>> have happened had the Player 2 had not made the infraction and instead
>> given the correction -- that the opponents would have both the wrong
>> explanation and the correct explanation?
> Indeed we should.
> Seems very basic to me.
Now, a player gives a wrong explanation. Then he realizes the correct
agreement. This occurs during the auction. If he fails to correct his
explanation, that's a second infraction, right? And we follow the same
basic procedure as above? (Rectify for if he had said the correct
information at that time, giving the opponents use of the wrong
explanatino and the correct explanation.
More information about the Blml