[BLML] Reply to Grattan (agreements about conventions)

Robert Frick 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 mailing list