[blml] alertability

[Eric Landau]

At 03:38 PM 1/12/07, Sven wrote:

>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.

I'd have thought that no player may ever refuse to give any relevant 
information *about his partnership's agreements* in reply to a specific 
request from an opponent.

Consider this situation:  Partner makes a call for which we have an 
explicitly agreed point range.  I know from previous experience with 
this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than our 
agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad game 
to that point.  That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must 
disclose.  Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not we 
estimate that we are having a bad game?


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607