[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:31:36 -0400, David Burn <dalburn at btopenworld.com>  
wrote:

> [AG]
>
>>> 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.
>
> [DALB]
>
> I am an old man, and I can remember being set mathematics problems at  
> school
> that contained the injunction "Show your working". This was, of course,  
> to
> stop you simply writing down the answer at the back of the book, or  
> cribbing
> it from a more competent classmate (my mathematics classes contained only
> these).
>
> Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table,  
> you do
> so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit)  
> that
> your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says  
> the
> Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I.
>
> David Burn
> London, England

I disagree. If you can work out the meaning of a bid, based on knowledge  
of your system that the opps do not have, you should have an obligation to  
explain the meaning of the bid; it is inappropriate to just give them the  
necessary information and see if they can work it out.

For example, the 1D opening bid in Precision shows an opening hand and no  
other bid. Is that an acceptable explanation? I don't think so. If I add  
"We play that 1C is 16+ HCP, 1M shows a five-card major, 2C shows a 6-card  
club suit, and 2D shows 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 distribution, is that enough?

I think the opps should be able to sit peacefully in their seats and hear  
that the 1D openers shows an opening hand, fewer than 16 HCP, 2 or more  
diamonds, and possibly as many as 5 clubs.