[blml] Disclosure

[Eric Landau]

On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>> 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.

Of course it will be fine, but that requires knowing which it is.   
What I've been talking about is undiscussed "implicit" knowledge  
derived solely from prior experience with this partner.  The problem  
I set hypothesized that the quoted statement above represents the  
totality of such knowledge; you can't definitively resolve it to a  
simple statement, because you lack a sure knowledge of what partner  
thinks of these particular opponents.

>> 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.

Herman's example, like Steve's answer above, misses the subject.  In  
Herman's example, the pair in question had to have explicitly  
discussed, jointly held "opinions" of the opponents.  As I have  
pointed out previously, and Steve has restated above, there is no  
problem in that case.

> 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.)

That's a purely semantic difference.  I have been using the term  
"implicit agreement" to cover any knowledge you might have that (a)  
does not derive from an explicit agreement, and (b) is disclosable by  
law.  If someone wants to offer a different term for the above along  
with a different definition for "implicit agreement", I would be  
willing to adopt their terminology.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net