[blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat)

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/24/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
>
> > On 7/23/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "richard willey" <richard.willey at gmail.com>
> >>>> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on
> >>>> to a
> >>>> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of
> >>>> magic
> >>>> words to justify their behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless.
> >>
> >> That sounds obvious, but may not be true.  Numerous authorities have
> >> opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which
> >> it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others).  If you accept
> >> any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the
> >> action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the
> >> relevant others.  When we must deal with expectations as well as with
> >> actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > I don't yet see anything wrong or unworkable with Richard and Steve's
> > suggestion.  I find their idea appealing.  Maybe an example would
> > help?
>
> We sit down to play, and you ask me about my 1NT openings.  Scenario
> (a): I reply 15-17.  Scenario (b): 15-17, but I do like to psych a
> 1NT opening with fewer than 5 HCP and a long suit to run to.  Then
> during the session I open 1NT with x/xx/QJxxxxx/xxx, which,
> inevitably, winds up in some kind of disclosure-related
> adjudication.  Richard and Steve seem to be saying that the
> difference between scenarios (a) and (b) should never be a factor in
> determining the outcome; I do not agree.
>
> In scenario (c), I give the same answer as in (b), but this time I
> also describe the "psychic" possibility on my CC (having moved to a
> jurisdiction that allows me to).  That is yet a third situation, for
> which the appropriate adjudication might well be different from that
> in either (a) or (b).
>
> I'd have thought that the point I was trying to make was trivial and
> obvious:  *If* you believe that your ruling depends on the extent to
> which one party's action "came as a surprise" to another, it must
> perforce depend on what the second party was previously told to expect.
>

I doubt that Richard and Steve mean that (a) and (b) should be
adjudicated the same, because they describe clearly different sets of
hands.  What they probably are saying is that if (b) and (c) define
the exact same set of hands that would open 1NT, and also the same set
of hands that would not open 1NT, then they should be adjudicated the
same.  And if another scenario, (d), also describes the same set of
hands that would open 1NT but if avoids the use of the word "psych,"
then (b) (c) and (d) should be adjudicated the same.

> >>> From: "richard willey" <richard.willey at gmail.com>
> >>>> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on
> >>>> to a
> >>>> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of
> >>>> magic
> >>>> words to justify their behavior.

Whether the pair call it a psych is irrelevant, but whether they
disclose their understandings is certainly relevant.  As long as they
accurately disclose the set of hands that open 1NT according to their
understandings, their choice of words in the description should not
matter.  I think that is their point, and I think it is worth
considering, for many SO regulations violate this.

-Jerry Fusselman