[blml] GK&E

[Todd M. Zimnoch]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Eric Landau:
>>I have had an auction which, so far, has been fully
>>disclosed to and fully comprehended by my opponents.  Now
>>my partner jumps to game, and an opponent asks what that
>>means.  I reply that it means he thinks he is going to
>>make it.  So then they ask me what he would have to hold
>>in order to think he is going to make it.  Without the
>>"inferences from GK&E" clause of L75C, I would be required
>>to educate my opponents on the subject of how much strength
>>is needed to expect to make a game.  The current law,
>>appropriately IMO, says that I am not obligated to do that.

I think this game might be better if I never again hear, "I 
don't have to answer that."  I don't believe that you can 
say your opponents have fully comprehended the auction if 
they ask such a question.  The director should be involved 
if they're asking for another, potentially unethical, reason.

> Richard Hills:
> If that is what current Law says (and Sven Pran, for one,
> seems to agree with my narrower definition of GK&E) then I
> freely violate current Law.

I wouldn't say you are violating current Law.  There's 
nothing prohibiting you from exceeding your disclosure 
obligations except being obnoxious about it.

I expected that the clause protects a player accused of 
inadequate disclosure -- what unmentioned details are 
considered too mundane that their exclusion should not have 
been a problem.  I don't like that the clause is used to 
justify no disclosure.

-Todd