[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Nigel]

[Sven Pran]
> 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.
>   
[Eric Landau]

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?"

[Sven Pran 2]

Suggested reply: "Honestly I don't know!!!!!"

Seriously, regardless of my experience with such partner my first answer
would have been (and in fact is in similar situations):
"At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP".

A better example please.

[Eric Landau]

Opp: "What does that show?"

Sven: "At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 
HCP".


Opp: "Do you have any prior experience to suggest under what
circumstances he would be likely to have less than 13 HCP for his bid?"

Unless Sven would decline to answer *that* question (which I, who stand
accused of being overly tolerant of such refusals, would answer), we
are back in the same scenario as before...

Sven: "Well, I admit I've only seen him do it against pairs he thinks
are not very good?"

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

...and here we are. Now Sven is entitled to volunteer any information
he may care to, provided he doesn't violate L75A1-2, but, in my book,

if he chooses to reply with, "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" it had better 
be the truth, or I shall have a lot less sympathy for his reply than 
for "I don't believe I'm required to answer that", which is, at least, 
an unassailably honest answer.

So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more 
responsive than, "A better example please."  What does he say when he 
knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck?

(a) "Actually he thinks you suck."

(b) "Honestly I don't know."

(c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that."

I'm for (c).  Sven?


[nige1]
If Eric has a shrewd idea of partner's probable low opinion of the 
opposition, then he can reply "Notionally 13+ but he can have as few as 
11, in the current context."

An opponent who asked about point range shouldn't expect more than that; 
but if he continues "Why?", Eric can answer "from experience"; and if 
the opponent insists "But what what is so peculiar about this context.", 
IMO, then and only then Eric may refuse to answer.

Eric is right that I'm more cynical about player honesty than most 
BLMLers are. IMO, players are a cross-section of society -- with honest 
people in a similar proportion. As in real-life, however, players 
rationalise their peccadilloes; hence most consider themselves honest.

I would include a player who refused to divulge his partner's probable 
point count among the class of prevaricators that Eric dismisses as 
*mythical*

(: present contributors excepted :)