[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

John (MadDog) Probst a écrit :
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes
>
>
>   
>>> holes and the holes.
>>>       
>> So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving
>> proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim
>> no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's
>> intention correctly.  The objective of full disclosure is to provide
>> opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has.
>> That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the
>> area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same
>> chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the
>> perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain
>> earlier.
>>
>> Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your
>> guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about
>> your actual agreements?
>>
>>     
>
> With the one partner I've actually managed to keep over the last 20 years, 
> we have a definitive list of our agreements. All things which have occurred, 
> or have been discussed have been written down. let's say it's about 100 
> pages long; 5K lines of agreed sequences, continuations and meta-agreements. 
> About once every 20 boards I am compelled to add to it :) Indeed I had to 
> add something about the 4th bid in a specific non-contested acution 
> recently, and responding 4N to a strong 1C had never been discussed or 
> written down either when it came up (It had to be trad. bkwd, btw). 
This looka like a good example of "not agreed upon, undiscussed, but 
understandable by anybody", thus perfectly legal.