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

[Tim West-Meads]

Richard wrote:
 
> **Imprimis**
> To say that a particular type of agreement - "style" - may not be
> restricted by regulation is _not_ the same as saying that "style"
> is not an agreement.  Ergo, I back Eric's point that agreeing to
> disagree creates an agreement, which therefore must be disclosed.

When have I have ever implied that such things need not be disclosed?

There are three categories of disclosable material (and I am not that 
concerned how we label them but given the current usage in law I go with:

1. "Agreements": Tend to be systemic in nature, regulable
2. "Understandings": Tend to be stylistic in nature and not regulable
3. "Experience": Knowledge additional to 1&2 above.

> Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's
> 1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT
> overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit.

I said nothing of the sort.  John's occasional aberrations are not 
matters of style or judgement - they are gross violations of system in a 
manner I have become aware of through experience.

In terms of "what is disclosable?" everything listed above is 
disclosable.  The only issue (and that is one for SOs) is how should 
such information be disclosed.  The "default" is that it should all be 
disclosed in answer to questions (as per L75c).  The specific is that 
most SOs require particular subsets of disclosable information to be 
explicit disclosed in various ways (CCs, alerts, announcements, 
pre-announcements, post-alerts) or whatever.  The totality of what I 
must disclose varies not one iota regardless of SO regulations - only 
the detail of how/when changes.

> It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling
> misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C.

It is you who quibble.  I maintain the reason L75C says "..agreement and 
experience.." is because if the words "..and experience.." were left out 
then there would be less information required to be disclosed.

> Corroboration for my interpretation is
> in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate
> description of the North-South hands".

So what?  They are still entitled to disclosure of information about the 
hands based on relevant partnership experience.  If you ask John "Does 
Tim's 1N tend to deny a five card major?" It shouldn't matter at all 
whether we have discussed the issue or come to any agreement about it - 
you should get the answer "No, he'll usually open 1N on 5332 shape even 
with a good 5cM (unless he has xxx,xx in two side suits)" because he 
*knows* that is the case.

Tim





> 
> **Secundus**
> Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's
> 1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT
> overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit.
> 
> It seems to me that this stretched-like-a-rubber-band quibbling
> interpretation of "style" is contrary to the intentions of the
> drafters of the Laws.  Rather, it seems to me that the intent was
> to legally permit a player to adopt the "style" of using
> "judgement" in hand evaluation.
> 
> For example, if a player held a balanced 18 hcp mostly consisting
> of scattered honours with poor pips they could stylishly judge to
> downgrade to a 15-17 1NT overcall.  Likewise any superb balanced
> 14 hcp with concentrated quick tricks and plenty of tens and nines
> could be stylishly judged to be upgraded to a 15-17 1NT overcall.
> 
> But "gross" is not "style".  So therefore, since a true psyche is
> defined as "a gross misstatement", Law 40E1 does not apply to any
> decision to psyche (Law 40A is the relevant Law instead).
> 
> However, as implied in my initial posting above, I believe that it
> would be useful if the phrase "style and judgement" was defined in
> the 2008 Definitions so as to prevent any sea-lawyer quibbling.
> 
> **Tertius**
> It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling
> misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C.  My interpretation of
> "the non-empty set of information" left open by Law 75C is that it
> is merely the special information that a player gets by seeing the
> cards in their own hand.  Corroboration for my interpretation is
> in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate
> description of the North-South hands".
> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>