[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>
> When we say
> we have no agreement, we have no agreement.
>

I don't understand this at all.  Eric, are you saying that the
director must find "no agreement exists" if the player says "no
agreement?"  Are you asserting that "no agreement" functions like a
get-out-of-jail-free card?  Do you mean that if you just say "no
agreement", the director should side with you every time?

Are you saying that if you feel like you have no understanding, then
you don't?  And the director must agree with you?

I think a point Richard Hills made earlier is worthwhile here.  (Well,
my own understanding of it might not match Richard's.)  If a player
says "No agreement," then under the 2008 laws the director or the
opponents should ask---"But is there an understanding?"  The word
agreement should not be used.  Let us use "understanding" instead of
"agreement" in these kinds of statements.  I am afraid that most
players and directors define "agreement" too specifically.  Sometimes
way too specifically.  They confuse themselves thinking of the
dictionary definition. This is the main point that Herman is making, I
believe.  Perhaps "understanding" will not suffer the same problem.

So please, consider avoiding the phrase "no agreement."  It clouds the
issue. Say "no understanding," if that is what you mean.

Jerry Fusselman