Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Apr 21, 12:18=A0pm, blackshoe <blacks...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:44=A0am, Bob <rfr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > The other problem for me is defining "agreement". I can deal with
> > agreement as encompassing the explicit agreements and the agreements
> > formed by past auctions and the meta-agreements and meaning that can
> > be extracted from knowing the agreements about other bids that weren't
> > made. But my sense WAS that when we said "Cappelletti?' "Yes." there
> > was more to our agreement then just this one word. But when I tried to
> > explain what the "extended agreement" was, I couldn't identify it. Or,
> > to be more precise, I couldn't find anything that also worked for
> > doubles when we don't discuss when they are on, etc. That's when I
> > latched onto the concept of "understanding".
>
> Here's the deal. When you sit down with a pickup partner and say
> "Cappelletti?" and he says "okay", if that's the extent of your
> conversation on the subject, you have screwed the pooch. You have no
> idea if his understanding of the convention is the same as yours. Do
> you have an agreement? Well, no, not really. Do you even have an
> understanding? Well, yes, but you cannot be certain of the details.
> Unfortunately, it's the details you're required to disclose. So if you
> want to be sure you can meet your disclosure obligations, you have to
> be sure, *before* you get to the table, that you have firm and
> complete agreements. Hard to do, I admit, in the 30 seconds or so
> before the first round starts, but them's the breaks.
>
> When you have screwed the pooch in this way, the best you can do at
> the table is explain what has happened: "we agreed to play
> Cappelletti, but we did not discuss details." Sometimes, they'll want
> to hear more. Often, they won't want your explanation of what you
> understand the bid to mean to give UI to your partner. Which is fine.
> And if you're on the other side of this, and still have a problem,
> your answer is simple: call the TD, and let him sort it out.

Hi Ed. This is another way at getting at how I would like to handle
disclosures and explanations. I am not sure how much we are on the
same wavelength or not, but in my words, I could try to argue that
partner's have an obligation before playing to agree on the meaning of
their bids. For practical reasons they might not, but if the opps are
damaged the players who failed to agree are the offending side.

So I am not supposed to agree to play Cappelletti without knowing what
it is. I can agree to play sup****t doubles without discussing when
they are on, but then we are the offending side if the opps are
misinformed about the meaning of a potential sup****t double because my
partner and I did not discuss it (and it turned out we had different
understandings).

Can law be used to sup****t this? It seems like a tough argument, but

New law 40A1(b) Each partner****p has a duty to make available its
partner****p understandings to opponents before commencing play against
them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this
shall be done.

So if your partner****p understandings were different, you are
obligated to re****t that difference before play starts.

Then, if you and your partner are required to agree, is is fair to use
a convention if your partner isn't going to know you are using it
because you never discussed it?

Also, I think a modern notion is that players also have an obligation
to follow their conventions a significant part of the time. The
Ghestem convention in particular seems to be adding to this feeling.

Okay, to bottom line this, I would be happy to go in this direction,
but I am not sure I could justify it by the laws. That's one reason I
am not trying to go this way.

More im****tant, it achieves that the opps are entitled to know the
meaning of partner's bid, even if you don't. But it does so through
enforcement of penalties. I don't think people will like that. If
possible, I would rather take my route and do that through action at
the table and no penalties. If possible. I mean rectifications. Like
it is online.