[blml] Disclosure

[Herman De Wael]

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> ****************************
> "The trouble with referees is that they 
> know the rules , but they don't know 
> the game."         [Bill Shankly]
>  vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
> To: <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure
> 
> 
>> (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",
>>  Steve Willner:
>> Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't 
>> see why it isn't disclosable.
> <
> +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's 
> own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case 
> of "should partner think we are having a bad game".
>         The underlying question is whether opponent has the 
> same information as yourself to judge what that individual 
> seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether 
> you have information (other than information generally known 
> to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out 
> to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) 
> action.
>               ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 

I don't think that is a good criterion.

Examples:

- "That is 10-12 if we're non-vulnerable, 15-17 if we are vulnerable".
Surely the info if they are vul is crucial, but it is known.

- "That shows 1 or 4 aces".
Surely the info if asker has 1 or 3 aces is crucial, but we all agree 
that this need not be disclosed.

- "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very 
frequently a psyche if we are not".
Surely the info if they are having a good game or not is crucial. Does 
it have to be disclosed?
And the fact that partners might disagree as to what constitutes a bad 
game does not alter the fact that in a majority of cases, both players 
will have the same opinion - should that not be revealed?

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html