[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:13 PM, John R. Mayne wrote:

>> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
>>
>> Herman De Wael asked:
>>
>>> But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we
>>> discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both
>>> assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and
>>> they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not
>>> agree this".
>>
>> Richard Hills answers:
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Alternatively, no.
>
> In the US, 4-card majors are unpopular; even my 4.8-card majory  
> style is considered some sort of heresy. (Many experts play 4-ish- 
> card majors in third and fourth seat, but they are widely  
> outnumbered.)
>
> If I sat across someone for whom I knew only "From San Diego,  
> California," and we agreed on strong NT's, 4-suit transfers,  
> aggressive preempts, support, maximal, and responsive doubles....  
> we'd both assume we were playing a 5-card major system.
>
> The correct answer is, "We didn't explicitly discuss it, but our  
> other agreements are consistent with a 2/1 framework, which is a 5- 
> card major system.

Perfect!

>  Or: "We agreed standard, which I assume is five-card majors."

Not perfect, but close enough.

> If we've had enough of a discussion to have inferential  
> understandings - and I'm sure taking his bid as a five-card major,  
> even if I might fudge in the same situation - we've got to show those.
>
> The best example I've come up with is I sit across from Experienced  
> Very Good 40-year-old US Player. We agree on 2/1ish with my style  
> of preempts and a few other things. We start off with on hand 1:
>
> 1D-1H
> 1S-1N
> 3C-4H
>
> We have no agreement on this auction. But, I know my partner is  
> EVG40YOUSP, and I can take an inference that my opponents might  
> not. The "logical" meaning of 4H might be apparent to you - and I  
> will be quite confident as to its meaning, so confident I would  
> make the same 4H bid with the right hand - but I am making an  
> inference based on the quality of my partner.
>
> My opponents deserve to be on the same standing. If we are from the  
> same area and all know each other, "No agreement," might be  
> sufficient. But if they are Uzbekhi visitors or rookies, they  
> deserve a proper explanation of 4H.
>
> "No agreement," is seldom a good idea.

Possibly never.  You can't hide behind "no agreement" just because  
you have no specific agreement about the particular call in  
question.  If you are disclosing ethically, "no agreement" should  
mean that you have no agreement whatsoever that might be potentially  
useful in determining what the call in question might mean.  IOW, it  
should be the same as "I haven't got the foggiest clue" -- and if  
that's the case, you're better off saying it outright.

> There are situations where it's right, but if we assume 5-card  
> majors, we should tell 'em. And if you both know what 4H means in  
> the above auction, why keep it secret?

Finally, we hear from someone who understands that you can provide  
useful, complete and unconstrained full disclosure without the need  
to profess to partnership agreements that you don't actually have!   
Thank you, John.


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