[blml] The reall issue of "no agreement"

[Robert Frick]

Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership agreement" and  
argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be different from  
the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are  
miscommunicating.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is
> neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding
> (APU).  BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may
> be used in an attempt to communicate the APU.  Regardless of which is
> used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI
> infraction.

I am not sure what you mean by "understanding". Presumably this is more  
than our full literal agreement. For example, if we agree to play  
Cappelletti, surely I have to tell the opps the meaning of partner's bids.

Or, if my partner and I have not agreed on the meaning of a 2D opening,  
and then my partner opens 2D, can I just say "undiscussed"? I can know  
that it is almost certainly a weak two diamonds or Flannery, because both  
are common here. Are my opps entitled to that knowledge?

I am thinking that when my partner and I agree on Cappelletti, negative  
doubles, support doubles, 4-suited Jacoby transfer, that our partnership  
understandings go far beyond our literal agreement. For example, I will  
assume that with just the agreement "4-suited Jacoby transfer", the  
sequence 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2NT denies a four-card major by responder.

The problem is, the partners will (unfortunately for them) have different  
understandings.

So, it does not seem right that when I open 1NT, there is a 2H overcall,  
and my partner doubles, that I alert and say "We have agreed to play  
negative doubles but we have not talked about when they are on or off." In  
fact, my understanding is that they are off in that situation. However,  
once my partner's understanding was that they were on.

Partners will also differ on their meta-understandings. Suppose my partner  
opens 2D and we have not discussed the meaning of this bid. Because 2D is  
commonly Flannery in my area, my actual partnership understanding is that  
a 2D opening is ambiguous -- 65% for a weak two (common, default  
understanding tends to be natural rather than conventional) and 35% for  
Flannery (for undiscussed conventions, the default is conventions common  
to the partner's skill level).

However, my partner's actual partnership understanding is probably  
different, especially since he decided to open 2D.

Or to return to the Cappelletti example, when my partner agrees to play  
Cappelletti, he has a good understanding of the meaning of the 2C bid.  
That's his understanding. When I agree to play Cappelletti, I am trying to  
save time and hoping it doesn't come up, because I have trouble  
remembering the meaning of the bids.

Or, suppose my partner and I agree to play a convention, but we have both  
completely forgotten about it.  Are our opponents entitled to our literal  
agreement? I think so, though it can only mislead them. I like the idea  
that our "actual partnership understanding" is that it does not include  
the forgotten convention.

But then of course the two players have a different understanding when one  
remembers a convention and the other does not.

So, unless I am missing something, it seems that you cannot talk about the  
"actual partnership understanding". Instead, you have to talk about the  
bidder's partnership understanding and the partner's partnership  
understanding.

Or, put another way, the laws have a fect that they assume the two  
partners have the same "actual partnership understanding". When they are  
the same, no problem. When they are different, I think the game of bridge  
would be more enjoyable if the opps were entitled to the bidder's actual  
partnership agreement. As for laws, I suspect they will favor bidder's  
actual partnership understanding.

Bob