[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-August-28, 18:11, said:

Absolutely not. Sven's views are at variance with the Laws. Being in the EBU is completely irrelevant. Sven believes you should disclose things that are not partnership understandings. Neither I nor the Law book agree.

I am fully aware that bluejak doesn't agree on what constitutes partnership understandings, but I am not so sure about the Law book.

Careful reading of Law 40 makes me feel fairly confident that the Law book does indeed agree with me. (Note particularly the word awareness in Law 40A1a).

[campboy]

axman, on 2011-August-28, 20:31, said:

The EBU holds that a single instance of a player’s advance of his partner’s call** may establish that the partnership had a [pre-existing] CPU***- Q.E.D.

No, it doesn't. The EBU holds that a single instance may provide sufficient evidence to rule that it probably wasn't a single instance. One psyche does not constitute a CPU, but partner's actions may provide evidence that similar psyches have happened in the partnership before.

[mgoetze]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-22, 05:25, said:

I think we should all just accept that pran has an extreme minority position on this issue and move on.

[axman]

campboy, on 2011-August-29, 03:35, said:

No, it doesn't. The EBU holds that a single instance may provide sufficient evidence to rule that it probably wasn't a single instance. One psyche does not constitute a CPU, but partner's actions may provide evidence that similar psyches have happened in the partnership before.

The discussion concerns those things embraced by partnership understanding given that what a partner does [such as a single instance] is part of what is embraced. Such is an effect of the EBU rule that espouses that partner’s action is synonymous with partnership understanding prior to the action.

[hrothgar]

This whole topic reminds me of painful discussions trying to explain Bayesian statistics to frequentists....

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2011-August-26, 10:23, said:

Well, if I'm playing with my old buddies from Waterloo in Calgary, there are calls that we will have no agreement (we can remember) on, but I can still say "well, everybody out there plays it as XXX" even if everybody here plays it as YYY. Toronto-style 2/1 is subtly, but significantly, different from Calgary 2/1, and it does come up.

Also, things like "everybody at our club" or the like. At Our Club, that's GBK (to regulars); at the tournament, not so much.

barmar, on 2011-August-26, 10:48, said:

Are there really clubs that are so in-bred that you can make generalizations like that? Don't people come to clubs with all sorts of different history and experience?

Of course partnerships play different things; but if I sit down with one of the C players in Calgary, I can ask 3 questions - "what's your preempt style?" "what do we play over their NT?" and "blackwood style?" and be on the same track with them 95+% of the time. If I sit down opposite a random Calgary A-player that I have no experience, I can ask the same three questions (oh, and "carding?") and be about 92% - even though many of those "agreed standards" are different between the two! If we had 15 minutes to discuss things, then sure, we'd have more deviances; but "everybody" knows "Calgary standard" (for their group), and effectively the way I distinguish my (standard or 2/1-based) partnerships in my head is "Calgary standard, plus... (or minus ...)"

In Waterloo, I could do the same thing, but I would know that 1H-2C; 2S meant something totally different than it does here, and that I could count on 2NT-3S, or that he didn't have to fake a heart bid after 1D with a 2335 11-count because 2C isn't game forcing, or...

[Edit: swapped out an example for a much more specific one]