[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 6, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>> From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
>> When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a
>> common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they  
>> haven't any
>> agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree.
>
> L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to  
> him
> through partnership agreement."  This is rather more than just the
> agreements themselves.
>
>> Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a
>> fortiori.
>
> Oh, come on, Alain.  There are implicit agreements.  Suppose you and I
> sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT,
> OK?"  And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes  
> 1C-1H-1NT.  Do
> you really think "undiscussed" is enough?  We both know this 1NT won't
> be 12-14 balanced!  In the ACBL, it would require an alert.

Obviously, "undiscussed" is not enough, because the opponents are  
entitled to knowledge of your relevant partnership agreements.

However, "this is our first board together; our only agreements are  
five-card majors and weak notrumps" is enough, because it fully  
shares your knowledge of your relevant partnership agreements.

> In the original example case, both players realized that as a  
> result of
> other agreements, the 3D bid had to show a specific hand type, despite
> having no prior discussion of the exact sequence.  Do you really think
> the opponents are not entitled to know the same thing?

They are entitled to your relevant partnership agreements.  If you  
decide that 3D "had to" have a specific meaning, absent an agreement,  
"as a result of other [sic] agreements", you are obligated to  
disclose those agreements in full. If you have done that properly,  
either the meaning 3D "had to" have will be manifestly deducible  
(full disclosure does not require explaining how to apply deductive  
logic to draw conclusions), or, if they come to some other conclusion  
than yours, you will have no reason to assume that you are  
necessarily right and they are necessarily wrong.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net