[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
> 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 ?
> 

But Alain, you are guilty of a logical fallacy.

You say that agreements cover only things that are agreed upon. (All X 
are Y)
I tell you that this is not so, because sometimes one can have an 
agreement that one has not agreed upon (some X are non-Y)
You retort by giving an example of a non-agreement. (some non-X are 
non-Y).

I don't need to go on, do I?

> 
> Best regards
> 
>     Alain
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html