[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 17/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *****************************************
> "Beware when the great God lets
> loose a thinker on this planet."
>             ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> ===========================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" <schoderb at msn.com>
> To: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>; "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> Cc: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations
>
>
> >I beg to differ with Grattan.  It is not "habitual"
> >violations that create implicit agreements. One is
> > usually enough.
> >
> > Kojak
> >
> +=+ Oh, I agree. I was merely quoting the law book.
>                                                     ~ G ~   +=+
>

One violation can not ever of itself create an implicit agreement
there must be something else not least of which is an agreement.

If my partner violates our agreements then it is quite likely that I
will disagree, although sometimes the violation exposes a gaping hole
which is normally plugged by an explicit agreement. If I disagree then
there is no way that this can create an agreement implicit or
otherwise.

A pattern of violations could but do not necessarily create an
implicit agreement. In my serious partnerships however they are likely
to create an explicit agreement or disagreement. If they continue to
be a disagreement that does not mean they do not need to be disclosed
as the disclosure requirements include 'experience' as well as
'agreements'.

Another problem with the 'one violation' equals agreement is that it
is impossible from one violation to establish the parameters of the
supposed implicit agreement.  I play (11)12-14 1NT 1st and 2nd seat -
which is supposed to mean that we open all 12-14 and what we consider
good 11 hcp 1NT.  In some trials in 2006 I once opened 1NT with only
10 hcp.  I had never done this before and I have never done this
again. Would I do it again?  Yes if the right hand came along in the
right situation and I was in the right mood? If this is to be
considered an 'agreement' how are we supposed to explain the
parameters of this supposed agreement.  Having experimented with this
once I do not even know the parameters of this violation. So it is
impossible to explain this supposed agreement to anyone.  However it
is very easy to say (11)12-14 by agreement but from experience rarely
hands outside this range have been opened.

Further from this one experience I have no idea whether partner agrees
that this violation is properly part of our system.  And since I doubt
she reads BLML I doubt that she has any idea based on this one
experiment whether I would perpetrate the same violation again.

Much stronger inferences might be able to  be drawn if there was a
pattern of violations.

Wayne