[blml] The reall issue of "no agreement"

[Robert Frick]

Online -- at least when I played but I think everywhere -- the players  
self-alert and tell opps the intended meaning of their bid. (BIM = the  
opps learn the Bidder's Intended Meaning).

This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would  
(usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has  
developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's explanation of  
the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the  
bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning).

I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight against  
BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive influence  
is players experiencing BIM and liking it.

The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the  
bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for any  
miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the  
partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of their  
bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can recover,  
fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the  
meaning of all of their bids.

So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge capture  
these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws to fit  
this plan?

One BIM solution is this -- when you do not know your partner's intended  
meaning, leave the table and let partner explain it.

A second BIM solution is that when you say the meaning of partner's bid  
and you are wrong, the opps are protected. This is how the laws work for  
misexplanations. This is not how the laws work for misbids, and that is a  
long story.

The serious problem for BIM is the (potential) legality of "no agreement".  
Consider this auction

2C(1)    X(2)   XX(3)  2D
2H        ?

(1) Strong and artificial -- Standard American
(2) Showing clubs
(3) Meaning undiscussed.

Whether or not you compete with your black two-suiter depends on the  
meaning of the redouble. If  the redouble shows a bust, maybe you want to;  
if it shows stuff, then competing is not as good of idea. So you ask.

The correct answer here was "no agreement". They hadn't agreed. From the  
perspective of PUM, that answer achieves perfection. From the perspective  
of BIM, that answer is hell.

Okay, hell is an overstatement. But it's not the way I would prefer to  
play bridge.