[blml] why no convention card?

[Matthias Berghaus]

"No agreement" is not enough if either player is more aware of his 
partner`s tendencies than the opponents can be expected to be. As soon 
as there is some common background (playing in the same environment, for 
example) it is to be disclosed. As a TD I might give the opps nothing if 
Tim and his partner are as well known to them as to each other, 
depending on their experience level, but nevertheless this disclosure is 
as it should be, whether the current laws demand them or not.

The "junior and rubber player" case is pretty borderline, and much 
depends on what the players know about each other, but the scenario per 
se is a good example of what is called for by the laws. Any information 
not readily available to the opponents that may have any impact on that 
particular situation has to be disclosed.
Tim`s hypothetical answer strikes me as very complete and thoughtful, 
telling everything without revealing anything (even *if* it did more 
than the laws call for, as none of it would lead to any problems). No 
MI, no UI.

Matthias

Tim West-Meads schrieb:
> Todd wrote:
>  
>   
>> 	I think this is a good example of good practice.  You do 
>> know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything 
>> relevant and useful to the situation you could.  This is a 
>> vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" 
>> and leaving the discussion at that.
>>
>> 	But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate 
>> disclosure in this situation.  
>>     
>
> Not even close IMO - I think L75C requires at least the level of 
> disclosure I gave.  Had opps been less knowledgeable I'd have added that 
> juniors play WJOs and money players IJO+.
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>