[blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Guthrie a écrit :
>
> Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position.
>
> There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested 
> previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and 
> eat it.
>   - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements 
> without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships.
>   - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement 
> is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid.
>   
>
> The best of all worlds :)
>
>
>   
[AG]
Except for three points :

1) It goes against L40A and L75B. No OB may change any article of Law.

2) How do you differentiate a misbid from a mispull, a psyche or not 
having seen opponent's bid ? If you begin penalizing players who pulled 
2H in lieu of 2S, because partner couldn't explain the bid, you'll 
rapidly end up with no players. Remember the explanation must cover what 
is in the system, not in the player's hand. And if you don't penalize 
mispulls, players will begin claiming they mispulled when they forgot 
the system. The liars against which the Dutch federation is working with 
their ruling won't shy away from this.

3) The "standard system" can't be made to cover all situations : neither 
details of intricated auctions, defense against standard systems, nor 
what you do over their  infractions (no conventions, remember) will be 
covered ; how do you ascertain if the pair plays "standard" in that case ?

Best regards

    Alain





> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>