richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Tue Nov 6 06:56:44 CET 2012

Yogi Berra apocryphally said, "It's deja vu all
over again." Attached is a blml discussion from
April 2005.


Nigel Guthrie interpreted:

>My interpretation emphasised two controversial
>points with which Richard may or may not agree
>A. Some of Richard's "analogies" may be
>undiscussed; they may be established by
>partnership experience alone; there may even
>be other relevant clues.

Richard Hills clarifies:

In my opinion, implicit partnership agreements
can be created by:

(a) At-the-table prior partnership experience.
Example: With one partner I have an implicit
agreement that her 12-14 1NT openings always
have at least 12 hcp; she has a different
implicit agreement that I might open with 11
hcp if I like my tens.

(b) By analogy.
Example: With one partner I have an explicit
(and old-fashioned) agreement that many doubles
defined as negative by most experts are defined
as penalty in the system I created for our
partnership. So, if I perpetrate a notionally
undiscussed double, if the penalty option is a
plausible interpretation, then the penalty
option is our implicit partnership agreement
created by analogy.

(c) By mutual assumption due to local mores.
Example: Playing in a new partnership with a
strange (but expertly strange) partner, this
auction occurred.

1NT.....2C (1)

(1) Notionally undiscussed.

In another environment I might have passed 2C;
but in the Canberra expert environment I knew
that most local experts played 2C as an
artificial checkback. And so it was correctly
mutually assumed to be, thus an implicit
agreement of our new partnership.

Of course, a category (b) (by analogy) or
category (c) (by mutual assumption due to
local mores) implicit partnership agreement
only happens on the first occasion. Subsequent
occasions are metamorphosed to category (a)
(at-the-table prior partnership experience),
or alternatively upgraded to explicit
partnership agreements by a consequential

Nigel Guthrie interpreted:

>B. It's insufficient merely to reveal
>partnership style. You must also divulge
>likely meanings -- that is -- you must
>disclose your inferential conclusion not
>just the analogue reasoning that led up to

Richard Hills clarifies:

Yes and no.

In my opinion, simply saying "undiscussed" -
when in actuality you have an implicit
partnership agreement created by inference -
is misinformation.

For example, I fully disclose negative
inferences from the timing of partner's
termination of a relay auction.

But non-systemic deductions and conclusions
need not be revealed. And, of course,
deductions and conclusions which are based
upon looking at your own cards need not be

For example, an Aussie expert devised an
ingenious two-way system to confuse the
opponents. The super-scientific (and fully
disclosed) auction went:

1C (1)......1D (2)
1H (3)......1S (4)

(1) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp
(2) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp
(3) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp
(4) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp

Both partners held 19 hcp. An unlucky
inferential conclusion by both partners. But
their decision to play a grand slam in a
partscore was *not* an implicit agreement
requiring disclosure.


Best wishes

Richard Hills
Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/8c7c9e71/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list