[blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations)

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations)


> Eric wrote:
>
>> "Agree: To come to an understanding or to terms."
>>
>> "Agreement: The state of being agreed." [both AHD]
>>
>> IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have an
>> agreement on the subject.
>
> Eric, there exists - in the light of L40E "including a requirement that
> both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation
> must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." -
> a presumed non-empty set of understandings which do not constitute
> regulable agreements.  My examples were intended to be members of that
> set - I am open to other suggestions for possible membership.
>
> Richard wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The laws disagree with you.  73C "a player shall disclose all special
> information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
> experience".  Again there is a presumed non-empty set of information
> conveyed through partnership experience rather than any sort of
> agreement.  The WBF also disagrees - their CC requires explicit
> disclosure of experience of partner's psychic habits but does not allow
> one to base one's own bidding on such knowledge prior to exposure of the
> psych.  A TD *might* rule that the frequency of such actions means the
> bid should be considered systemic (that's a judgement issue) but he may
> not so rule on the basis that *all* partnership experience is a matter of
> agreement.  My own judgement (and John's) is that the experiential
> frequency is high enough to merit disclosure but not high enough to
> bother incorporating into our system/agreements.

... and very signicantly, it's a call that I could make much more often, but 
frequently don't bother, as I like to keep the frequency low. This means 
that opponents counter measures would be non-productive. If it were 
systemic, we would have to discuss when it was appropriate, and what the run 
outs are.  Bear in mind that "sans atout comique" would be legal anyway, so 
we're on very firm ground here. I find it very frustrating that my 
propensities are not disclosable on an EBU CC. John

>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml