[BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions)

Nigel Guthrie nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Sep 22 17:52:31 CEST 2010

[Eric Landau]
The opponents are entitled to the same understanding of your  

partner's calls as your own.  If they (think they) know Cappelletti,  
they can act accordingly at their own risk.  You are not responsible  
for disclosing an agreement you don't have.

Ordinary players disadvantage themselves by failing to read discussions like 
My previous understanding was: 

- The reason that describing a convention *by name* is frowned upon is to avoid 
damage *to opponents*: Opponents may be unfamiliar with the convention; and have 
to waste time and generate unauthorised information if they attempt to find out. 

- I shared other wide-spread delusions: that your system-card should be as full 
and accurate a description as possible of your understandings. If opponents get 
a poor score because your card is inaccurate, then the director awards them 
redress. In the absence of damage, the director may still impose a procedural 
penalty for a missing or sloppy card, 

Now, following Grattan and Richard, there is a growing BLML consensus that the 
boot is on the other foot. if "Reverse attitude, Mckenny, Stayman, Splinter, 
Cappelletti, RKC" (or whatever) appear on your system-card that does mean you 
understand the convention or have agreed to play it. The same applies if you 
describe a treatment by name, when an opponent asks. Even worse: if your card 
describes a treatment in simple English, that still does not imply that it is 
your agreement. Opponents must always cross-examine you about every detail to 
protect themselves.  As more players become aware of this, the game will become 

IMO, if this interpretation of current disclosure law is correct, then the 2018 
law should be changed to mandate: 

- Your disclosure (spoken/written) should be as complete and accurate as 

- You may describe a widely known system or convention *by name*, to save time, 
only if you know it and play it by the book (You must still provide details, on 

More information about the Blml mailing list