[blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>In my opinion, it is only the meaning of calls
>>and plays which are partnership understandings
>>that need to be disclosed.  The intended meaning
>>of a call or play which is not a partnership
>>understanding need not be disclosed.

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ But is not the totality of our agreed methods
>a partnership understanding? - and do we not add
>to it each time we make a call in a particular
>situation for the first time and discover its
>intended meaning?
>                                 ~ G ~   +=+

Richard Hills:

Of course.  The totality of one's partnership
understandings very often create an implicit
partnership understanding about a call which has
not yet been explicitly discussed by one's
partnership.  And even if the whole truth and
nothing but the truth is "undiscussed" the first
time partner perpetrates a particular call, the
second time that such a particular perpetration
occurs it is likely to now be a partnership
understanding.  So the longer one plays with a
particular partner (or even with various partners
amongst a particular like-minded group) the
greater becomes the number of one's partnership
understandings.

The point that I am trying to make is that there
is not any requirement to disclose anything that
is not a partnership understanding.  This is
where I differ from Tim West-Meads and John
(MadDog) Probst.

Tim West-Meads:

>>>>pard occasionally psychs his 1N overcalls
>>>>when nv in 3rd) this too is disclosable but
>>>>is not a matter of agreement or understanding
>>>>(we have no systemic protection to deal with
>>>>such psychs).

John MadDog Probst:

>>>Tim knows I have a low frequency of 1NT psychic
>>>overcalls. He discloses this but it is not an
>>>agreement. If it were we would develop methods
>>>to handle it, as one does when developing a
>>>system.

Richard Hills:

I disagree with Tim and John.  In my opinion, if
something is frequent enough to be disclosed,
then it is frequent enough to be an implicit
partnership agreement.  It is irrelevant whether
or not methods have been developed to handle the
subsequent auction.

WBF Code of Practice, page 8:

"A partnership may not defend itself against an
allegation that its psychic action is based upon
an understanding by claiming that, although the
partner had an awareness of the possibility of a
psychic in the given situation, the partner's
actions subsequent to the psychic have been
entirely normal."

Richard Hills:

Ergo, I would argue that what MadDog describes as
his "psychic" 1NT overcall I would describe as
his "revealed partnership understanding" 1NT
overcall.  The definition of a psyche says that it
is a "gross misstatement"; it cannot be that if
partner expects it to the extent of disclosing it.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, mentor
Divisional Executive Officer unit
People Services, Values & Training Division
(02) 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.
DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.
The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department’s
website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm