[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we 
> discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both assume 
> that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me 
> "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". What when 
> they ask: "impossible, you must have some idea". Should I not divulge 
> that we are most certainly playing five-cards?
>
>   
Well, that example is perhaps too enormous to have any chance of happening.
But I can give you a good example where I wouldn't like "not to be left 
off the hook" as you say it.

In my team for the 2nd round of the Belgian T4 cup, we had to use a 
last-minute substitute. He had about 2 minutes to discuss and they began 
to play.
On the first round they played, his partner reopened 1NT over 1D. 
Opponents wanted to know the strangth of that bid. He said (correctly) 
that he didn't know. As I understand it, there was no agreement.
Now he decided to bash 3NT on a 12-count, because, in teams and 
vulnerable, when you don't know, you bid it. He was right, since partner 
held a good 13-count.
Apparently, this particular partner's range for 1NT is 12-15, contrary 
to most Belgian players, who favor 10-13 or even less. Notice that it 
was more probable that partner used 10-13 than 12-15 as 1NT reopening 
range. But my teammate decided he couldn't bank on this.

Now, some TDs will tell us the player didn't explain correctly, the 
proof being that he guessed well, so there should ave been some agreement.
> I think that even if we did not say it out loud, we "agreed" on 5-card majors. And anyway, it's not the word agreeing that is important, it's the bridge laws term: "partnership agreement".
>
>   
OK, now tell me what their agreement was ? And what should he have 
explained ?


Best regards

    Alain