[BLML] Both players forget
lskelso at ihug.com.au
Fri Aug 29 14:00:34 CEST 2014
This law considers the partnership's level of potential awareness and
then speaks of 'deviations' only in respect to frequency (i.e. those
that are repeated). I see no other words that qualify or limit it's
application. There is certainly no reference to the type or magnitude
of such 'deviations'.
In my view the definition remains broad and I would thus include
repeated mis-bids as a sub-set.
On 29/08/2014 7:35 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> Laurie Kelso schreef:
>> Herman - I think Richard would quote Law 40C1:
>> "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form
>> part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance
>> with the regulations governing disclosure of system."
> You are correct, Laurie. Well, it was actually Sven who gave the quote.
> See my answer to Sven's post for my reply.
> The important thing is what partner can do with the knowledge. if he
> knows partner sometimes has only 9 when the system says 10-12, he need
> not do anything. But coping with a partner who might have clubs when
> showing red suits is impossible.
> The 10-12 system can "cope" with 9; the "reds" system cannot cope with
>> On 29/08/2014 6:18 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>>> Sven Pran schreef:
>>>>> Herman De Wael
>>>>> I agree sith part of this message, but not the whole:
>>>> [Sven Pran]
>>>> I don't understand what part of Richard's post you disagree with?
>>>> The fact is that a partnership has an agreement where 3C jump overcall shows
>>>> 5/5 in the red suits.
>>>> But it is also a fact that one of the players with a certain probability
>>>> forgets this agreement and instead use this 3C bid as natural.
>>>> So long as this mistake is not just accidental, and although random occurs
>>>> with a certain probability, opponents are entitled to the actual agreement,
>>>> the full nature of the mistake and the (approximate) probability with which
>>>> it occurs (individually for each player). (Law 40C1)
>>>> Isn't this what you both have stated?
>>> It is, but Richard goes even further.
>>> Richard believes that, if a player forgets an agreement with a certain
>>> frequency, then this creates not just a disclosable fact, but a new
>>> agreement, to which the system regulations become applicable.
>>> And that is going too far, IMO.
>>> What is your view on that one, Sven?
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
More information about the Blml