[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Ed Reppert]

On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> Now this understanding is clearly in conflict with Law 75C! When  
> answering a
> question you need not include matters of general knowledge and  
> experience on
> which you have an honest assumption that such matter should be  
> known also to
> your opponents. For instance failing to mention that a simple  
> overcall shows
> at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation of Law  
> 75C (nor
> of the ACBL regulation).
>
> But once your opponents ask a specific question, whether directly  
> or for
> clarification, then that question must be (fully) answered.  
> Responding "I
> need not answer this" or words to that effect is in my opinion a clear
> violation of law 74A2 (just to mention one). To complete the  
> example above:
> If opponents ask about the length of the suit named in a simple  
> overcall
> then the answer should be "at least five cards"; saying something  
> like "I do
> not need to answer this question" should be severely penalized!

Pfui.

The regulation I quoted says "all relevant disclosure". That does not  
include GK&E.

Aside from that, my point was simply that Eric's assertion that if  
the opponents do not explicitly ask for "all the details you are  
aware of" you are not required to divulge some such details (not a  
matter of GK&E) is incorrect.

I deplore hiding behind GK&E as an excuse for not disclosing  
something about one's methods. Nonetheless, Law 75C specifically  
exempts inferences from GK&E from the requirements of full  
disclosure. OTOH, the expected length of the suit in a simple  
overcall is not an inference; it is the GK&E itself. So yeah, if  
asked that specific question, you should answer it.

But suppose there *is* a matter of inference from GK&E - you cannot  
be required to divulge that inference, and if it is the *only*  
relevant thing about the call in question (which seems to me ought to  
be a very rare occurrence) then how do you handle it?