[barmar]

helene_t, on Oct 28 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

barmar, on Oct 28 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

However, I agree that if the players are guessing at what they think the agreement is, it would be better for the procedure to err towards the explanation that actually matches the hand.

Players should not guess at what the agreement is. (In practice, some do).

But sometimes p is convinced that his bid means X and I am convinced it means Y.

Right, they shouldn't guess. They should know their agreements and then explain them correctly, and they should know when they're in a situation that isn't covered by their agreements.

But in practice, that doesn't always happen. If they don't realize they don't have an agreement (e.g. they think it's covered by some general defaults, but it really isn't), they're going to give an explanation. Explaining a nonexistent agreement is essentially misinformation. So the question that's left is: If you're going to give misinformation, isn't there less potential damage to the opponents if the misinformation accurately reflects what the player holds?

However, some players expect too much. They don't believe that in a self-alert system you should ever say "No agreement", but that you should always explain what you think your bid shows. They apparently think "No agreement" is equivalent to "I don't know" in the partner-alert system, and obviously the self-alerting player knows what he's trying to show. But that's not the way to think about it. As I think I mentioned earlier, you have to distinguish between what you expect partner to understand and what you merely hope (sometimes it's more like pray).

[blackshoe]

Quote

So the question that's left is: If you're going to give misinformation, isn't there less potential damage to the opponents if the misinformation accurately reflects what the player holds?

This is the infamous "DeWael school" approach, which the WBFLC has explicitly contradicted (in a minute last year, I think).

[Old York]

blackshoe, on Oct 27 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

Old York, on Oct 27 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods etc.

Per which law?

Sorry, my mistake

What I meant was.....

A TD should never interfere whilst kibbing, unless certain that a pair are cheating or using highly unusual methods (etc. means other infractions which is certain to damage oppo)

The word "certain" is not optional

I have read the other thread, but experts seem to disagree on the exact intention of the lawmakers

Tony