[blml] Disclosure

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
[Alain: could you please turn off HTML for your BLML messages?  You make 
them very hard for some of us to read.]

> how about this one:  "That is normally
> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing
> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."?

Either "normally natural" or "frequently a psych" will be fine.  No need 
to give a reason.

> However, against players who
> practise the same style, we tend to be more serious

If such variation is allowed by your SO, all you have to do is give 
accurate explanations for the table where you are playing.  No need to 
say what you might do at other tables.

Herman's example, while not possible in most SO's, illustrates the point 
very well.  Just say what your partner's bid means, including style and 
judgment if known, and never mind the reasons.

From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> We are trying to draw the line (if it exists, which might  
> itself be subject to debate) through the universe of "partnership  
> experience" to demarcate between those types of "experience" which  
> may become disclosable implicit agreements and those which do not.

Not at all.  Style and judgment -- whether or not they are implicit 
agreements -- are fully disclosable, at least in response to questions 
and otherwise if the SO says so.  See L40B, 40E1, and 75C.

An implicit agreement, if conventional or a light initial action at the 
one level, may also be regulated, but that's a different matter. (One I 
hope to return to, but alas not before Thursday.)