[blml] alertability

[Wayne Burrows]

On 13/01/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> At 12:16 AM 1/12/07, richard.hills wrote:
>
> >I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than "Incapable
> >director!"
> >
> >The director has simply made a ruling in accordance with
> >the Marvin French interpretation of Law 75.  Law 75A
> >requires all "special" partnership agreements to be
> >disclosed, but Marvin French would argue that a Goren's
> >Bridge Complete jump to 3H is not "special", so need not
> >be disclosed.
> >
> >And the fact that Goren defines all jump raises as game
> >forcing Marvin French defines as "general knowledge and
> >experience" under Law 75C, so again Marvin French would
> >argue that this information need not be disclosed.
> >
> >The possibility that Ed might never read Goren's Bridge
> >Complete is irrelevant to a Marvin French interpretation
> >of Law 75.  So, until Law 75 is rewritten, Ed cannot
> >legally gain any satisfaction against a Director whose
> >rulings are French fried.
>
> The fallacy in the view that Richard ascribes to Marv is that nowhere
> does TFLB say that "general knowledge and experience" need not be
> disclosed.  L75C says that "*inferences from*... general knowledge and
> experience" [emphasis mine] need not be disclosed, which is something
> entirely different.
>
> My interpretation of L75C says that you must inform your opponents that
> 3H is game-forcing, notwithstanding that this may be GK&E, but need not
> respond, for example, to the follow-up question "what's the point range
> for that?", which you could readily figure out (and may well have
> already) from your GK&E.  (Of course, if you do have an explicit
> agreement about point range, you've already blown it by describing 3H
> only as "game-forcing".)
>

Even if you have an implicit agreement you need to disclose it or
perhaps more likely if you have partnership experience even without
agreement that also needs to be disclosed.

I find that in a regular partnership it becomes necessary to give much
more information than in a casual partnership.

Next week I am playing with a tournament with a partner that I have
only played with once before several years ago.  I recall on the first
day that we played that we both passed and the opponent's opened a
strong 1C in fourth seat, I overcalled 1H, LHO passed and partner
raised to 3H.  I was asked about this bid and replied 'We have no
special partnership understanding' along with an explanation that this
was the first event we had ever played.  Whereas in my regular
partnership I almost always have detailed explanations based on our
explicit and implicit agreements and partnership experience.

Wayne