[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Eric Landau]

At 11:14 AM 1/17/07, Sven wrote:

> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> > > nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the
> > > opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are
> > > aware of.
> >
> >  From the ACBL Alert regulation:
> >
> > "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request
> > for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate
> > the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given
> > automatically."
> >
> > I submit that Eric should have placed the period above after the word
> > "withheld", and omitted the "if" clause.
>
>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!

It should indeed.  But I have yet to see what I would consider a 
relevant example (other than what I have offered myself) of what I 
believe the "GK&E" exception in L75C actually covers.  This certainly 
isn't one.

What you must disclose is (a) your knowledge of your agreements, (b) 
inferences drawn from your knowledge of your agreements, and (c) your 
GK&E.  What you need not disclose is (d) inferences drawn from your 
GK&E.  Your agreements are your agreements; the fact that a simple 
overcall shows at least five cards in the suit is one of your 
agreements, falls into category (a), and must be disclosed.  Just 
because everyone you know has the same particular agreement that you do 
doesn't somehow make it not an agreement, nor does it somehow 
"reclassify" it from category (a) to category (d).  Nobody argues that 
it does, except perhaps Nigel's semi-mythical "prevaricators".


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