[BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions)
rfrick at rfrick.info
Fri Sep 24 04:04:27 CEST 2010
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:50:29 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> My position is not that complicated. When you make an agreement to
> play a convention, in whatever fashion, you either form a mutual
> understanding of the method you have agreed to (which you are then
> legally obligated to remember), or you don't. If you do, you have a
> partnership understanding. If you don't, you don't. WTP?
One problem is the difficult of actually stating a feasible description of
this. My partner and I agree to play what is in a book. We "either form a
mutual understanding of the method ... or we don't." But then one or both
of us reads the book some more. Do you really want to say that our
agreement/understanding depends on what we understood when we made the
agreement and doesn't change? Probably not.
But allowing it to change over time doesn't work very well either. I make
an agreement with my partner, then I forget an aspect of the convention.
Does that change our agreement so that we now do not have an agreement
about the convention? That seems very awkward.
> If you know what your bid means according to the convention you play,
> you tell them what your bid means according to the convention you
> play. If you have no agreement, you tell them you have no
> agreement. Your "advantage" is irrelevant. WTP?
So I know what my bid means according to the convention we agreed upon.
But my partner doesn't, leading us to have no agreement by your criteria.
Do I have to tell the opponents or not? Yes by your first sentence and no
by your second sentence?
More information about the Blml