[blml] Disclosure

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> 
>> Eric Landau wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>>>> L74A2? words or actions! If itis know you only psyche against weak
>>>> opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling
>>>> uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2!
>>>> So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in
>>>> the first place!
>>>>
>>>> If OTOH, you have a habit to never psyche against strong players,  
>>>> then
>>>> I am entitled to know this, and also to know if you consider me a
>>>> strong player (IMHO).
>>>>
>>>> If I were to ask in the middle of a hand you are declaring if you  
>>>> are
>>>> a frequent psycher or not, then I believe dummy (or even you  
>>>> yourself)
>>>> is obliged to answer me that, and if the answer is "yes, but never
>>>> against strong players", then I want to know where you draw the  
>>>> line.
>>> This is why we have a serious problem with the insidious concepts of
>>> "partnership understanding", "implicit agreement" and the like --
>>> they lead to conclusions like the one above.
>>>
>>> Somewhere in TFLB, Herman has found a legal justification for a
>>> player having the legal right to require that another player openly
>>> reveal his personal opinion of the inquirer's bridge ability (not to
>>> mention his ego).   Can this really be right (I don't mean true; I
>>> mean right)?
>>>
>>> Surely there is a line beyond which laws pertinent to "partnership
>>> understanding" do not extend, and surely this is beyond it.
>> So, to give a ridiculous example:
>>
>> "2He" - "yes please?"
>> "we play transfers against people we find obnoxious, but natural
>> against people we like".
>> "So, does he have hearts or spades"
>> "I don't have to tell you, since that would be breaking L74A2 and I
>> don't want to insult you".
>>
>> Do you really think you could get away with that?
>>
>> Other than this, of course I do not believe a player should be forced
>> to reveal what he thinks of his opponents.
>>
>> But to hide behind such a thing in order to conceal (yes I do use the
>> word) partnership understandings !!
> 
> Herman's example falls well outside our universe of discourse.  We  
> started this discussion with disclosure of our experience of  
> partner's tendency to psych under particular conditions, and have  
> expanded it to the subject of disclosure of implicit agreements in  
> general.  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.
> 
> In Herman's example, there can be no need to even concern ourselves  
> with the criterion by which we vary our methods or whether the  
> opposing pair satisfies it.  We know these not from experience, but  
> from discussion.  We have an *explicit* agreement by which 2H is  
> either natural or a transfer against *this pair*, and we must  
> disclose that explicit agreement.  There is, however, no possible  
> need or reason to disclose the reasoning behind our making that  
> agreement.
> 
> Herman's example is "ridiculous" only insofar as it makes an argument  
> about explicit agreements in the context of a discussion about  
> implicit agreements.
> 

In don't see what the distinction has to do with it. Both implicit and 
explaicit agreements need to be disclosed. The question is not whether 
we only need to disclose the agreement, or also the "trigger". If I 
have a habit of psyching against LHOs who wear red shirts, then that 
is disclosable. Do we now also tell RHO (who may be blind or 
colourblind) what shirt his partner is wearing? I do believe we 
should, since it is important for his understanding of our system.

But we've digressed into the realms of lunacy here!

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html