[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> 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'l sorry, Sir. You create the fallacy ex nihilo.by equating "discussed" 
with "agreed".

I never claimed that agreement = discussed.
I claim that agreement = agreed upon, through discussion, or :general 
style, or "local style" (like your 5cM example) , or as a logical 
consequence of what was discussed (the 1NT rebid example).
All those are agreed upon, even if not discussed. Those are our agreements.

But what you call "not agreed" is in fact agreed upon by some means.

And above all, I claimed that when there isn't any agreement, there is 
still a nonzero probability of getting it right, so that it penaluizing 
only on the basis of guessing right is perverse.

To put it another way : the fact of sitting in front of a player you 
know a bit, even if you didn't play with him, and of NOT discussing some 
point, may well have as a consequence that you've agreed to lpay the 
"default", as the Bridge World puts it. I claim that there can exist 
only 2 cases :
1. Agreed, possuibly by default : an agreement
2. Not agreed by any means : unduscussed.