[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Eric Landau]

At 02:37 PM 1/17/07, Sven wrote:

> > 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.

Allow me:

Opp: "What does that show?"

Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP.  However, 
I know from previous experience with this partner that he may have as 
few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not very good."

Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?"


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