[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> The regulation I quoted says "all relevant disclosure". 
> That does not include GK&E.

Well, IMO GK&E can be VERY relevant!

> I deplore hiding behind GK&E as an excuse for not disclosing
> something about one's methods. 

Absolutely. And in my opinion that possibility has never been the intention
of Law 75C.

> 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?

It would be much easier if you provided an example (like I did with the
"minimum 5 cards length")

I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the
information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question.

My position as a director is that if a player has asked for an explanation
(with a not leading question) and some information was left out from the
answer as being "generally knowledge" I would still rule misinformation if
it should appear that the player has some reason for not being aware of this
general knowledge or its importance in the situation.

Regards Sven