[BLML] Contractual agreements (problems)
rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Sep 29 07:09:56 CEST 2010
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:22:03 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:12:06 -0400, Eric Landau
>> <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>>> technical ambiguity is not a problem. When my partner and I agree on
>>>> "unusual 2NT", we both know there is a variation in which 2NT shows
>>>> minors over a minor suit opening. But we both know that is the
>>>> variation -- if we want to play that variation, we have to say so.
>>>> We both
>>>> know that without discussion, unusual no trump is for the two
>>>> lowest unbid
>>>> "holes" are a serious problem. For example, when playing negative
>>>> the meaning of this sequence is ambiguous:
>>>> 1C 1D X
>>>> Experts play this as showing both majors, as the convention is
>>>> Nonexperts usually play this as showing 1 4-card major. Whe players
>>>> on negative doubles, what is the agreement for this bid? I don't
>>>> think the
>>>> laws help me. Currently, I would describe the double as undefined
>>>> offer to leave the table so my partner could tell the opponents
>>>> what he
>>>> Hmmm, I guess that answers my question for me. What about, if
>>>> agree on a conventional name with ambiguities, the opps are
>>>> entitled to
>>>> know how each player has interpreted the ambiguity?
>>>> Small problem, because it is so rare. A 2D overcall was described as
>>>> showing both majors and the convention card said Cappelletti. But
>>>> player bidding 2D had diamonds and no awareness of the meaning of
>>>> any of
>>>> the Cappelletti bids. I ruled mistaken explanation. I think that is
>>>> fair ruling, but obviously it is not so consistent with the rest of
>>>> Contractual Perspective.
>>> I tried to make the point a while back that Richard's original "no
>>> agreement" argument was a presumption for adjudication, not for
>>> disclosure. Just because one's opponents are entitled to a
>>> particular disclosure of one's partnership understandings does not
>>> mean that either member of the partnership has the knowledge to
>>> provide the required disclosure. If you agree on a "conventional
>>> name with ambiguities", you either believe you have a mutual
>>> agreement as to how you will resolve those ambiguities, or you
>>> don't. If you do, you disclose that resolution; if you don't, you
>>> tell them you have no agreement. In either case, IOW, you tell them
>>> whatever you think the truth is.
>> But in this situation, the truth-according-to-Eric is "no
>> agreement". And
>> the player knows it. See below.
>>> If you're wrong, you have
>>> misinformed. You certainly do not "reveal" theoretical ambiguities
>>> in your methods which you do not believe exist in your actual
>>> partnership understanding; that would be deliberate misinformation.
>> The actual table situation from this occurred was a player agreeing on
>> Cappelletti, making a correct Cappelletti 2D bid, then discovering
>> his partner had no idea what his bid meant because his partner did not
>> know Capelletti. His partner was asked to leave the table while he
>> disclosed the correct meaning.
>> According to both you and Richard, the correct meaning is "no
>> You would allow the player to be generous and tell them the
>> meaning of his bid; Richard would not. In either case, you both say
>> he can say "no agreement" with no further explanation.
> Actually, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite, that you must
> reveal your explicit agreements. "We agreed to play Cappelletti but
> I have no idea what it is" (the truth) is a proper explanation, and
> I'm a bit nonplussed that Bob keeps reading this as if I were
> advocating "we have no agreement" (a lie). It is only the *TD or AC*
> who "can say [i.e. presume at adjudication] 'no agreement' with no
> further explanation". For Bob's protagonist, that would be
> intentional MI.
> From the other side of the table, though, the corresponding proper
> explanation would be, "We agreed to play Cappelletti, but I happen to
> know that my partner has no idea what it is," which I reject as the
> ravings of a lunatic, and am therefore not concerned with the
> question of how to treat such a situation in adjudication.
You lost me on that last sentence.
I wrote up a long response, then I realized that you think my partner does
not have to tell the opponents what 2D means in Cappelletti. (If we agreed
on Cappelletti and I have no idea what it is.) Which of course has been
your position all along. I think that was the important point to me.
Your description of what my partner has to say ("We agreed to play
Cappelletti but my partner doesn't know what that means") does not sound
that different to me than "no agreement". Actually, the only difference I
see is that the laws require players to state their agreements, not their
partner's mental state. But pick either one, I don't care, and you and
Richard can argue about it.
More information about the Blml