[blml] Disclosure

[Steve Willner]

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> The danger here is in trying to address two rather different kinds of  
> understanding 
...
> Partner makes a call.  You might or might not "know" (i.e. "have more  
> reason to be aware of... than [your] opponents") the probability that  
> he is psyching.  And you might or might not "know", if he is  
> psyching, what he is likely to hold.  These are two different pieces  
> of knowledge; you may have neither, either or both.  Whatever  
> knowledge you do have must, of course, be disclosed, in accordance etc.

The important point is that disclosure is required for whichever piece 
of knowledge you hold (as long as it comes from partnership experience 
and not general knowledge).

 > All
 > we seem able to glean from the laws at present is that there is some
 > inherent and ineffable property of understandings that, inevitably
 > within the context of a specific partnership, but also sometimes in
 > other contexts, strengthens over time until it reaches some
 > mysterious threshhold beyond which it causes the understanding to
 > metamorphose into an agreement.

I don't think it's quite so bad as that.  We need to keep in mind the 
difference between "what must be disclosed" (nearly everything) and 
"what may be regulated" (a proper subset but one whose exact boundaries 
are vague).  In general, "understandings" is the term for the former, 
and "agreements" is the term for the latter.  The only place this 
distinction seems blurred is L40D, which gives permission to regulate 
some types of "understandings."  I suspect this was some kind of 
political compromise to allow each ZO to do whatever it likes.

 > 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).

It seems to me these "authorities" obfuscate -- perhaps deliberately -- 
the difference between disclosure and regulation.  (The CoP is guilty in 
that regard, though close reading suggests it means disclosure.)

 > 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.

If I'm "Steve," I hope I've said no such thing.  The reply, whether (a) 
or (b), constitutes "partnership experience" in my view and has to be 
disclosed if the SO so requires (and always in response to questions).

 > the difference [between MI and CPU] is that "misinform" suggests
 > making an error, while "conceal" suggests taking a deliberate action.

Fair enough, though if you accept this, the implication is that most 
L40B violations are likely to be inadvertent.

The question for BLML is whether L40B violations are to be treated as MI 
or as illegal convention.  Herman says the former.  Grattan says the SO 
ought to specify when it adopts its convention regulations.  I can't 
disagree with that but point out that some SO's fail to do so.  At least 
one (the EBU) disagrees with Herman, I think.

If there's "deliberate action," then I'd expect conduct penalties, not 
mere score adjustment.

> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> The way I see it "Understanding" comprises the total knowledge of the
> methods 

It's helpful to read the Laws as written.  L40B contains the phrase 
"special partnership understanding."  It says such understandings must 
(in general) be disclosed in accordance with SO regulations.  L75A says 
much the same thing, and L75C emphasizes the requirement when questions 
are asked.  I don't think anyone disputes that the disclosure 
requirement is broad indeed.

> Law 40 specifically establishes that the use of
> concealed partnership understandings (i.e. "understandings" that have not
> been revealed to opponents) is illegal.

Not exactly.  If the SO doesn't _require_ disclosure, there's no 
infraction of L40B.  Tim puts it well: "if the CC is properly completed, 
alerts are properly given, but a piece of information isn't disclosed 
because no questions were asked, then there can be no "damage" as per L40c."

> it becomes rather unimportant, at least for me, to have
> precise definitions for what constitutes agreements or experience.

The importance comes when we need to consider whether the agreement 
itself is illegal.

> IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents
> (declared) ...

Yes, for an appropriate definition of "available" as noted above.

> and may be regulated by SO.

Not so.  As Grattan pointed out, there's a confusing bit in L40D, which 
allows ZO's to "regulate partnership understandings (even if not 
conventional)."  As TBW has pointed out, the preceding sentence "use of 
bidding or play conventions" is also ambiguous.  (Does "conventions" 
mean the agreement itself or the use of the agreement at the table?) 
The practical effect is that SO's can regulate whatever they want.  In 
the absence of clear regulations, it's hardly surprising that people 
will disagree.

However, even if you accept L40D as inclusive, it doesn't allow 
regulation of things that are neither conventions nor weak initial 
actions at the one level.  Also, it requires a specific regulation to be 
violated.

> Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as
> surprised as opponents.

This doesn't seem supported by the Laws or WBF regulations.

[I've lost track of who said what here, but the example is one partner 
who often opens 1NT with a 5cM]
> In my example, it is clear that there is an
> *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major

What needs to be disclosed depends on your SO.  The ACBL, for example, 
requires a notation on the convention card.  Other SO's probably have 
similar requirements, but some may not.  Full disclosure is required in 
answer to questions.

From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> Anything 
> I know, my partner could know. And should be disclosable to opponents.

This is admirable but seems to me to be going too far.  If you really 
just met your partner at the partnership desk, there will be not be much 
shared knowledge.  On the other hand, if you've been playing together 
for ten years, the Director will properly be skeptical of any claimed 
lack of experience.  This is, of course, a judgment matter.  As Tim 
says, "permanent beginners" may well have no "experience" no matter how 
long they have played together.

> From: "richard willey" <richard.willey at gmail.com>
>  I think that
> the existing regulations regarding psyches fail to frame the problem
> set appropriately.  The concept of a psyche should be removed from the
> Law books and replaced with convention regulations based on concepts
> like "mixed strategies", "multi-way" bids and the like.

Multi-way bids are included in many existing regulations.  (Consider 
either/or club or takeout double that may be strong and one-suited.)

Mixed strategies where each branch of the strategy is a legal agreement 
are no problem.  If one branch would constitute an illegal agreement -- 
as in the H1H in a non-HUM event -- I don't see that the frequency 
should matter.  As a practical matter, if the frequency is low, it will 
never be knowable, even by keeping very detailed records.

I have an idea how to approach the distinction between "agreement" and 
"understanding," but it will have to wait for another message.