[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[richard willey]

> I firmly believe that in such cases, the opponents are entitled to
> know the area surrounding the hole to such a large degree that they
> are also able to understand the meaning of the call within the hole.
> It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so
> completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the
> conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves.
> Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed
> something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are
> equally disclosable.
>
> And that was the point we were trying to make.
> Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not
> alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the
> holes and the holes.

Is there some kind of cavaet regarding third seat 1H openings?

> >
> > Eric Landau
>
>
> --
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


-- 
I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant
Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where
conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the
expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek

Those were simpler times