[blml] GK&E

[Eric Landau]

At 11:04 AM 1/17/07, Nigel wrote:

>IMO, a question about the final bid is an admission by your opponent 
>that he does *not*  comprehend the complete auction.  For instance, in 
>Eric's auction, there may be *negative inferences* inherent in a 
>completely natural jump to game. It may range from "Fast arrival" to a 
>descriptive "Picture bid". It may or may not deny the ability to 
>cue-bid with a control-rich minimum hand.
>
>Eric would also agree that *the whole may seem to be more than the sum 
>of its parts*. My favourite example is the following auction...
>
>2N   (P) 3C* (P)
>3D* (P) 3H* (P)
>3N* AP
>
>2N "20-22 with 5332 4432 or 4333 shape"
>3C "Relay (Puppet Stayman)"
>3D "No 5 card major; also denies holding precisely 2 spades and 3 hearts."
>3H "Exactly 4S; may also have 4H"
>3N "Denies 3 spades."
>
>At least, that is how we used to explain it. Now. at the end of the 
>auction. we add a subtle inference, inherent in the above description; 
>but not immediately obvious even to those gifted with *general bridge 
>knowledge and experience*: "The 2N opener has 4 hearts."
>
>Under the current law, this may be over-kill. But all mention of 
>"General knowledge and experience" should be expunged from the next 
>version of the laws. Prevarication is already rife without providing 
>spurious justification.

Nobody is arguing that negative inferences from one's partnership 
agreements need not be fully disclosed.  Nigel seems to miss the point 
that things like "fast arrival", "picture bid", "denies the ability to 
cue bid", etc. are all partnership agreements.

Nigel's scheme of rebids after 2NT-3C isn't something he has deduced 
from his general knowledge and experience; it is a partnership 
agreement.  That the 2NT opener in his example has four hearts isn't an 
"inference[] drawn from his general knowledge and experience" [L75C]; 
it is an inference drawn from his very specific knowledge of his very 
specific partnership agreement.  Of course it must be fully 
disclosed.  And since, as Nigel says, it is "not immediately obvious", 
Nigel is quite right to offer it in reply to any inquiry without the 
need for further prompting; to fail to do so would leave his 
explanantion open to being deemed insufficient.

I see nothing whatsoever in Nigel's example that pertains in any way to 
"inferences drawn from... general knowledge and experience" -- beyond 
the fact that "prevaricators" may cite L75C, entirely inappropriately 
and illogically, in an attempt to befuddle inexperienced adjudicators 
who don't comprehend the meaning of the phrase (even Nigel, quite 
correctly, labels such nonsense as "spurious").  I can only assure 
Nigel that in the venues where I play (and occasionally direct), we 
know spurious nonsense when we see it, and they do not get away with it.


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