[BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding.
blackshoe at mac.com
Wed Apr 18 23:52:06 CEST 2012
On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
> I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was
> mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the
> agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't
> have that all be no agreement.
> The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good
> mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement
If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds or a major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to say only no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified Cappelletti" and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is this difficult to understand?
More information about the Blml