Since Dr.Hal was gracious enough not to name his opponent, I will step up and explain my side of the story.
First - the set of rules agreed was minimal. DrHal mentioned liking historical play but inovation being a must. Only rule that was agreed was paying PPs to cross national boundaries.
Second - Turn one - I tried to have a balanced turn, with few a-historical things and a lot of the "historical" ones. That meant invasion of Khota Baru, not Mersing. On the a-historical side, I invaded Singkawang, Jolo and Manado. No hunting of Boise or Houston, or any other TFs with known starting points.
Third - KB disposition. Being a game with very few agreed rules, I tried to be prepared. I've seen on the forums here games where the allies send CVs to strike KB while it is striking the PH port. So I set-up one of the KB's kate squadrons on naval attack, while the rest were set to port strike.
I also made sure to have solid escorts for all my invasions.
KB placement was exactly as the scenario set-it, I didn't change the hex. Nor for the oiler fleet.
Fourth - The invasions plan. Since I don't belive my game against Dr Hal will continue, there is no need for opsec. I wanted to do 3 landings in two weeks: wake, midway and Johnston island.
For these to be successful, I thought it would be best to have the KB head north after day one to cover Midway and to have a mini-KB covering wake. The second TF would be composed of 1CVL and one CV split up from the KB.
Fifth - what happened. Lexington moved straight west and got into range of my two TFs (one with the CV, one with the CVL) and these reacted towards it.
So Lex will probably sink.
Sixth - what I belive.
I tested the same turn without changing orders for Lexington - there is no CV clash as Lex goes 3 hexes north then all the way southeast towards Johnston island.
So, to be clear: moving Lex on the historical course, or even on an a-historical one northwards, southwards or southeastwards would NOT result in a CV clash. Even a SW move would not result in the CV clash.
Moving LEX directly westwards will generate a reaction from IJN CVL and CV TFs and ensure a CV battle.
And since Dr. Hal never explained why Lex was moving westwards, I asked around: there is a VB Marine Squadron on Wake that gets destroyed when Wake is conquered. (It was destroyed in real life.) Some Allied players view moving Lex towards Wake as a low-risk move to rescue that VBF Marine Squadron by moving it onboard Lexington. This move can also be a springboard for a raid on Wake invasion in case the KB shows itself around Midway. (which I planned to do anyway like I said earlier).
Seventh - my offer. I explained in detail to Dr.Hal that it was not my intention to hunt his CV. I also offered a redo of the turn with him moving Lex anywhere else but westwards which would ensure that no CV clash ensues on day one.
I'm not trying to be "sneaky" and pull "shenanigans". If I did, I would have landed at Mersing or Singapore on turn one. Or I would have sent 3 TFs of 2CVs each in a search pattern west and southwest of PH, especially to hunt and destroy the allied CVs while also having TFs ready for Boise and Houston. I didn't do any of these.
As I told him, I belived that moving LEX westwards to recover the Wake airplanes or even raiding the invasion force is a risk vs reward mission. However, I also told him that we should settle this between ourselves, as two starting PBEM partners should.
I am willing to post my e-mails here as well as the savegame so that everyone can see that I was in no way offensive or categoric.
In the end, I belive that the expectations for this game were completely different for both of us and we failed to communicate about it.
To be precise - Dr.Hal expected no splitting KB and no a-historical positioning of any IJN CVs while a-historical positioning of allied CVs being allowed.
I expected him to position his CVs anywhere on the map, including within strike distance of KB and prepared for that.
It's all about expectations.