[blml] alertability

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> 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".)

L75C permits a player when explaining an auction to omit certain details
related to a call on the ground that such details are kind of inference from
his general knowledge and experience.

I have however a very firm opinion that no player may ever refuse to give
any relevant information in reply to a specific request from an opponent.

The main intention of L75 is to place both sides at equal terms when
interpreting the auction. The purpose of the "need not" clause in L75C is to
relieve the explaining player from including (lots of) obvious stuff with
his explanation; it is not to permit him denying opponents relevant
information which they feel they might need however obvious this information
might seem. 

Sven