[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Alain Gottcheiner]

John (MadDog) Probst a écrit :
> snip
>   
>>> 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.
>>>       
>
> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no 
> guarantee"  John
>
>   
Well, I'd say "undiscussed" rather  than "no agreement", because a 
meta-agreement is an agreement, but this will indeed be fairly common.

>> As to the first, of course you can. If two players are on the same
>> wavelength, they can inform their opponents of this, no? You would
>> prefer them to say "no agreement" and then accept that as literal truth?
>> As to the second, you are turning things around. It is not illegal to
>> work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is
>> illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's intention.
>>
>>     
But some would like to disallow the former too. And I don't like this.