[blml] Disclosure

[Steve Willner]

(sorry, meant to include this in my previous message)

From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
>  I may have a "heightened  
> awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a)  
> he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has  
> been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I  
> estimate that we are having a very bad game.  I do not believe that  
> that the latter is a disclosable "understanding",

Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't see why it 
isn't disclosable.  It's akin to, for example, complex signalling 
agreements that depend on the contents of dummy.  You don't need to give 
explanations that are not relevant to the present situation, but you 
need to disclose everything that's relevant.  (Simpler examples: no need 
to explain your spot card leads when partner has just led an honor or 
your suit leads against a notrump contract.)

In the example you give, you might answer a question with something to 
the effect of "I've seen him psych a few times (or once or never) in 
similar situations," or whatever your estimate is.  You don't need to 
include the factors you considered to make your estimate (which might 
include vulnerability, position at table, or perceived skill of 
opponents as well as your estimate of your scores).

> or that my failure  
> to reveal it makes the psych "not legal".

This is a separate question.  It may depend on SO regulations, but in 
general I agree with you here.