[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Guthrie wrote:

> If your explanation is correct, but your opponent does not  
> understand it
> because you use *any* term (not just a *Bridge* term) that he does not
> understand, IMO, he is entitled to further elucidation. In particular,
> if an opponent says he not understand what "Stayman" means in a given
> bidding context, then, whatever the law says, IMO you are morally
> obliged to explain it.

I do hope this is a troll.  "Whatever the law says"?!  There can't  
really be anyone reading this who actually thinks that "Stayman"  
satisfies one's legal obligation to disclose one's methods, can  
there?  The law requires you to disclose what your methods *are*; not  
whom they were named after.

And what's more, if you tell them that 2C "asks for a four-card  
major" and they ask you "what's a major?", the law requires you to  
explain that to them too.

If you tell them that the majors are "hearts and spades" and they ask  
"what's a spade?", *now* you're in moral as opposed to legal  
obligation territory.


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