[blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:06:20 -0400, Hans van Staveren <sater at xs4all.nl>  
wrote:

> [Kojak says]
>
> Is it legal for an RA to control the use of "agreements"? Sure, Law 40.
>
> Is this particular foray into control good for the game of bridge?  I  
> don't
> know what the game of bridge "is" in that RA, but what I read makes me  
> think
>
> not.  But, Mr. Clinton says that first you have to define "is".
>
> [me]
>
> Perhaps I have never properly understood this Law 40 possibility.
>
> Suppose the rule is: "any misbid of an agreement less than 1 year old is
> misinformation"
>
> Now a 6 month old partnership opens 2C, agreed as GF. Opps ask. What can
> they explain?
>
> Take 1: They say "GF". Turns out bidder was confused, thinking about  
> other
> partner(s) and has weak 2 in diamonds. TD rules misinformation according  
> to
> above rule.
>
> Take 2: They say "an agreement less than 1 year old, no need to explain
> further". Ridiculous.
>
> Take 3: They say "this is a six month old agreement in this six month old
> partnership. We agreed GF. It is the third occurrence, all others have  
> been
> correct so far". Brilliant. Perfect information. The weak two again. TD  
> has
> to rule misinformation???? But we just agreed the information was  
> perfect,
> so how can it be misinformation?
>
> Hans

It seems to me that (1) players would like to be protected against the  
effects of opponents' misleading explanation of the intended meaning of a  
bid and (2) are not greatly concerned about their own rights to give  
misleading explanations of their intended meanings.

Perhaps the Dutch League is working towards this goal. They are not doing  
it in a very straightforward way, and your message above illustrates two  
of the potential problems.

Perhaps they should be "clarifying" the evidence needed to rule mistaken  
explanation versus mistaken call.