[BLML] zero, one, or two understandings

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Nov 5 16:06:59 CET 2012


We have not agreed on what our opening 2 Diamond bid means. My partner  
nonetheless opens 2 Diamonds. I can guess, based on my partner's ability  
level and habits at the club, that there is an 80% chance that is natural.  
Suppose my partner thinks there is a 90% chance I will take it as weak,  
though I don't know that.

ZERO
As I understand the ABF and EBU regulations, which focus on agreements, I  
can simply say no agreement.

Between the two of us, we have two different understandings. One position  
is that we don't have to present either of them. So I say "no  
understanding".

BOTH
A second interpretation is that the opponents are entitled to both of them  
(both of the understandings of the players in our partnership). Once they  
find out my partner's understanding, that will give away the show.

JUST ONE
A third position is that they are entitled only to the understanding of  
the player answering the question. I don't find that lawful. To me, there  
is just information the opponents are entitled to know, and it is an  
accident of fate which player has the responsibility to say it. And the  
other player is supposed to correct it.

And that third position seems to collapse when the bidder is asked to  
explain his own bid. Now the opponents have both understandings. If they  
aren't entitled to both understandings, then was it director error to ask  
the bidder to explain his bid?


More information about the Blml mailing list