[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes


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.

There were possibilities that it was a =3352 14-16 hand, some 
meta-agreements would point to this, but there is an 8 bid sequence that 
would also probably show this hand and also covered by meta-agreements. When 
your system agreements are complex it is actually more difficult to decide 
whether an "obvious" but unagreed bid is actually "obvious". Our style (also 
an agreement) is that we don't crucify partner with an undiscussed bid if 
there's a way round it, so bkwd seemed the obvious choice, but I tell you I 
wasn't certain.



_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml