[BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sat Apr 21 03:02:57 CEST 2012


On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:09:00 -0400, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info>  
wrote:

> The players agreed on Standard, 2/1, and tried to discuss the borderline
> situations. They never talked about defense to 1NT, even though that is a
> very common thing to discuss when two players are making agreements.
>
> 1NT P  2S P
>   P  P
>
>
> Partner of the 2S bidder believes that the bid is undiscussed. (The most
> common agreement here is Cappelletti.)
>
> According to Eric, undiscussed is all the opponents are entitled to know.
>
> According to Richard, "no agreement" is all they are entitled to know.
>
> According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the opponents are entitled to
> hear what the 2S bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this ruling.)
>
>
> Both of these hands were from today.


What information is the 2S bidder required to say? Eric has said, pretty  
clearly, that the opponents are entitled to know what his partner knew,  
which is that it was undiscussed and so partner didn't know what it meant.  
So the 2S bidder gives the same answer?

I am guessing that Eric will not like that answer. But I am not sure what  
other choice there is. Will Eric require the player to explain more than  
the opponents are entitled to know? If the player explains only what they  
are entitled to know, there couldn't be any rectification. Right?

Of course, if this is behind screens, the 2S would tell his screenmate  
that it was natural. But this was without screens and he knew that his  
partner doesn't have that understanding. So he has to solve the problem of  
what the opponents are required to know concerning individual  
understandings that are not part of the mutual understanding. According to  
Richard, in the current laws the answer is "no agreement". So he could  
just say that, according to Richard.


More information about the Blml mailing list