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

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Thu Aug 22 01:38:42 CEST 2013


Robert Frick schreef:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:33:53 -0400, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Frick schreef:
>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:56:25 -0400, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> prior
>>> to the opening lead. The opponents can use both pieces of information,
>>> right?
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>> would
>>> 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.
>
> Great.
>
> 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.

Indeed, this is a problem.
I believe that a player should be allowed to NOT correct his own 
explanation, if he believes this will help his opponents and harm him.

He is not allowed to do this at this moment, but we shall never know if 
he breaks that non-allowancce. After all, he is the only one to know 
that he remembered the right agreemant. It serves no purpose to oblige a 
player to do something that we cannot check. Far better would it be to 
allow the player to choose for himself whether or not to correct his 
misexplanation. IMO a player should correct when he also corrects his 
bid, and that correction reveals that he remembered. Better then to also 
give the opponents the correct information.

I know I am about to be called a cheat. But the real cheat is the one 
who keeps quiet when the laws tell him to speak out. I am merely making 
the laws such that non-cheats get the same result as cheats that we 
cannot catch anyway.

Herman.


> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13
>
>


More information about the Blml mailing list