Hello everybody, can you help me with the confirmation of this small Helvella?

It was collected in September, on rich humous or loess soil under Acer, Tilia and Fraxinus.
Cap saddle-shaped or rather regularly trilobate, to 10 mm on average, the margin rolled upwards (deflexed), hymenium dark brown, lighter after getting wet, outer surface white or whitish, strongly contrasting with hymenium; stipe max. 20 mm long, 2–5 mm wide, tapering upwards; outer side and stipe pubescent - fine, but visible to the naked eye, drying furfuraceous (rather than pubescent). Microscopy with the drying material in water. Asci 300–350 x 16–20 µm, paraphyses enlarged to 5-9 µm on the top. Ascospores (15.7) 18.9–21.1 (22.3) × (11.5) 12.5–14.1 (14.6) µm; Q = (1.1) 1.4–1.55 (1.6) ; N = 44; but the maturity is questionable.

The problem is with the receptacle or stipe surface. If I respect my specimen, i.e. pubescent surface, the keys lead me into a dead end. And the glabrous surface leads me to H. levis Bergeret (=H. latispora Boud.?) or H. bicolor Raddi (= H. albella Quél.) in the key by Skrede et al. This key is fully consistent with Bergeret's original description of H. levis (i.a.) (in French): "Helvelle lisse ... Chapeau très-lisse en dessous ... Colonne très-lisse; très-blanche..." etc. This same for H. latispora - Boudier writes (in Latin): "... parte inferà et pediculo albidis, laevibus ... Pediculus glaber ..." etc.

Then I don't understand Nicolas's opinion on those topics:

http://www.ascofrance.com/search_forum/70277
http://www.ascofrance.com/search_forum/63851

However, this problem is eliminated with Helvella bicolor (H. albella). Raddi in his original description doesn't talk about the surface of the receptaculum or of the stem, but Quélet writes (in French): "... subcartilagineuxet peridium membraneux, ..., finement floconneux et d'un blanc de neige..."

So I'm confused.
Thanks for your help.
Marek