[AlexJonson]

[quote name='campboy' timestamp='1309555616' post='558061']
No, she said it had never come up but had been discussed circa 2008.


So an agreement discussed and agreed but not yet bid on a particular hand, is not an agreement? Do you really want to support this argument?

[campboy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-01, 15:46, said:

So an agreement discussed and agreed but not yet bid on a particular hand, is not an agreement? Do you really want to support this argument?

What? Because I corrected a false statement you made about what was said in the OP I automatically agree with some random argument you just made up? Of course I don't.

[AlexJonson]

campboy, on 2011-July-02, 11:06, said:

What? Because I corrected a false statement you made about what was said in the OP I automatically agree with some random argument you just made up? Of course I don't.

See below. The OP statement pasted below says there was an agreement about the 3D bid. I am frankly astonished that you contest this, and surprised you talk aout correcting a false statement by me.

'You believe that the system file says that 3♦ is natural, to play. You are about 90% confident of this as you were reading it only yesterday at breakfast. It has never come up before, and you know that partner may or may not have remembered, although he's generally pretty good - everything in the file was discussed, although some of it a few years ago (and this agreement is vintage July 2008, as are all your 2-suited overcall agreements). The alternative meaning for 3♦ would have been a game try in clubs.'

I think the bit about the 'alternative agreement..' introduces the fielding question.

[campboy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-02, 13:18, said:

See below. The OP statement pasted below says there was an agreement about the 3D bid. I am frankly astonished that you contest this, and surprised you talk aout correcting a false statement by me.

Of course there is an agreement, and of course I don't contest this. The false statement by you was

Quote

The OP says 3D has come up before but some time ago - the norm perhaps for almost all agreements(?). Did you not notice that Campboy, you are usually very precise.

In fact, the OP said, as you quote in your most recent post

Quote

It has never come up before [...]

Now I wouldn't even have bothered correcting what you said about the original post had you not addressed it directly to me. I don't appreciate being accused of believing something ridiculous which I never said, merely on the basis of that correction.

[AlexJonson]

campboy, on 2011-July-02, 14:18, said:

Of course there is an agreement, and of course I don't contest this. The false statement by you was

In fact, the OP said, as you quote in your most recent post

Now I wouldn't even have bothered correcting what you said about the original post had you not addressed it directly to me. I don't appreciate being accused of believing something ridiculous which I never said, merely on the basis of that correction.

Lovely piece of nonsense, Campboy. 'Never came up', pointless ambiguity and literalness. Discussed, agreed, but never came up.

And as to the substance of the matter? Is there a potential issue of fielding?

[blackshoe]

Campboy can speak for himself, but imo, no, there is no fielding issue here.

[Lurpoa]

gwnn, on 2011-June-22, 05:06, said:

I will just rebid my 7 solid it is absolutely clear that this is natural.

yes, and why is that absolutely clear ?

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 18:46, said:

Campboy can speak for himself, but imo, no, there is no fielding issue here.

Thanks Blackshoe

The only Laws expert to post.