[blml] Disclosure

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure


> From: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
>> Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's
>> own belief that 'we are having a bad game'.
>
> I agree with that.
>
>> I am inclined to think that how well you are doing is more a matter
>> of judgement than of information in a pairs movement. Even in head to
>> head teams and some other events that judgement is equally available
>> to both pairs at the table

I've been asked by Hackett on a late round of an event "How are you 
doing"; - he's not asking for me to dump, but he is telling me he and his 
punter are doing well. I answered honestly "Pretty good, need a top off you" 
and then we got down to the game, but all that needed to be said had been 
said. I didn't think Hackett had done anything wrong, and he knows I'm 
pretty dangerous. I did get a top off his punter, cheered me up, and he was 
gracious to me, less so to the punter.  I think he's entitled to know how 
I'm going to play, when he has an interest in the game.  John

>
> If you have played head to head, then the opponents have the same
> information about your game you do.  Their judgment may be better or
> worse than yours, but that's fine.  The problem comes in a pairs
> movement, when they lack access to the relevant information.
>
> From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
>> - "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.
>
> Giving only the answer relevant to the current conditions would suffice,
> though it won't hurt to add "at this vulnerability" to avoid future
> problems.  (In the extreme of playing many different ranges depending on
> seat and vul., a complete answer for all conditions is not even 
> desirable.)
>
>> - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very
>> frequently a psyche if we are not".
>
> My suggestion is that good/bad game is not disclosable _per se_, but its
> _implication_ for your partnership experience is disclosable.  Thus I'd
> suggest "almost certainly natural" or "frequently a psyche" would be
> proper, depending on your judgment of your game.  ("Almost" because your
> judgment may possibly be wrong, but you could leave out the qualifier if
> you are sure.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml