Re: Is an agreement an agreement?

I agree with Jan Peach. During the auction a player is NOT permitted to receive two explanations of an opposing call from BOTH opponents.

Only if one opponent gives a non-explanation (for example, "I know that we have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, but I have temporarily forgotten what it is.") may the Director send that opponent away from the table and require the other opponent to describe the system meaning of the call.

Of course, during the Correction Period both members of the putative declaring side MUST contradict each other (and summon the Director) if they have differing memories of their pre-existing mutual partnership understandings.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 11:38 AM, Jan Peach <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mike Amos
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 11:03 AM
> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is an agreement an agreement?
> 
> It can't possibly be correct to tell your opponents that your agreement is
> that 2D is a Weak Two unless it is your agreement.  Your player doesn't know
> if the partner read the card or knows the agreement.  He should tell the
> opponents what he knows.  "We agreed to play what's on my card which says
> that 2D is weak.  My partner arrived late and we had no time to discuss. I
> don't know if he read the card.   I don't know what he thinks.  Please call
> the TD who may be able t(So help you"
> 
> You the TD can send the floundering partner away from the table and explain
> to the opponents that they are allowed to ask the 2D opener if they believe
> the partnership does have an agreement.  They can't ask what he holds, and
> if the partnership does not have an agreement, that is what they should be
> told.
> ..................................................................
> 
> Jan:
> Where is the authority for the director to do this?
> 
> WBFLC Lille 1998;
> If a player knows that his partner’s call is conventional but says he cannot 
> recall
> what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player 
> away
> from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what 
> the
> agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before 
> he
> arrives.
> The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has 
> understood his
> call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is 
> uncertain of
> the meaning.
> The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is 
> completed.
> This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not 
> apply
> when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no 
> agreement.
> 
> 
> .................................
> 
> You don't tell us the hands or the outcome, but it seems to me that a player
> who tells his opponents that his partner's bid shows  a Weak Two in Diamonds
> and then proceeds to act on the basis that it might be Flannery (apologies
> for the F-word) is unlikely to be in a strong position if the opponents
> claim to have been damaged by MI.
> 
> To be honest I think this is a simple situation which should be well handled
> by a Club Director.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert
> Frick
> Sent: 13 April 2018 20:07
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Subject: [BLML] Is an agreement an agreement?
> 
> 
> Your partner opens 2 Diamonds, RHO asks, and you explain it as a weak two.
> RHO bids 2NT and it is your call. You hold
> 
> X
> Qx
> KJxxx
> 98xxx
> 
> 
> You are playing with your partner for the first time. He came late, so there
> was no time to talk about hardly anything. You gave him your card, which
> said 2 Diamonds is weak. It's not clear how much time he had to look at the
> card, but it wasn't much, and it's not clear what he read. Or remembered.
> It's probably more common here to play 2D as Flannery, 4-5 in the majors
> with an opening hand.
> 
> So, first question, what do you bid?
> 
> The player decided to pass. I think that's a reasonable bid, given the high
> probability that partner might have the Flannery hand.
> 
> And, second question, did she fulfill her legal obligations to explain
> partner's bid? If not, what should she have said?
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml