[BLML] X plane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Sep 20 13:27:05 CEST 2010


On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:53:14 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Robert Frick:
>
>> Yes, but maybe you are missing the point.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> No, it seems to me that Bob is missing the point.  From his
> postings on this and parallel threads it seems to me that
> Bob visualises the Cappelletti convention as a Platonic
> ideal, existing ab ovo without any requirement for a pre-
> existing mutual partnership understanding.

True! I think that the Cappelletti convention exists before my partner and  
I agree to play it. Maybe that is the source of our disagreement?


>
> Robert Frick:
>
>> My partner agreed to Capelletti. He knew what it meant. He
>> bid his hand correctly.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> No, technically Bob's partner bid his hand randomly,
> choosing a meaningless call, since Bob did not have a pre-
> existing understanding about what Cappelletti meant.

I really am not interested in "technically" or "hypothetically". I have to  
rule on guises of this issue very frequently.

In reality, no one would describe my partner as bidding randomly if he  
agrees on Capelletti and then follows Capalletti.

>
> Robert Frick:
>
>> Now *he* is allowed to tell the opponents we have no
>> agreement?
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Bob's partner is _required_ to tell the opponents that
> there is not any pre-existing mutual partnership
> understanding.  A unilateral understanding by one
> partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners.

And you think everyone agrees with this position? That he does not have to  
tell the opponents the meaning of his 2D bid according to the Capelletti  
convention which is on his card?


>
> Robert Frick:
>
>> You seem to be stating an opinion as if it was fact.
>

Let me set out another problem with your interpretation. I once agreed to  
learn Precision from the book my partner uses. Our partnership agreement  
was to follow the book.

You are saying that I cannot agree to follow parts of the book that I do  
not remember when I make the agreement?

That seems odd. And I assume that if Meckstroth and Rodwell sit down to  
play and agree to play their system notes, that agreement has precedence  
over their previous agreements. So any issues of misinformation will hinge  
on whether or not they remember that part of their system notes when they  
make that agreement?


More information about the Blml mailing list