[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-22, 03:21, said:

While Law 40B2{a} allows the RA to ban any "special partnership understanding", I don't see how this can apply to psychs, because psychs are not matters of understanding, they're deviations from an understanding. Law 40C specifically makes legal deviations, including psychs, from partnership understandings, special or otherwise. Law 40B2{d} is thus not only not redundant, it is necessary if RAs are to be allowed to restrict psychs of artificial bids.

I didn't say that psychs are a matter of understanding - obviously they're not. I said that the regulator's right to allow SPUs conditionally includes the right to say "You may have this understanding, but only if you never psych it."

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-22, 03:57, said:

I didn't say that psychs are a matter of understanding - obviously they're not. I said that the regulator's right to allow SPUs conditionally includes the right to say "You may have this understanding, but only if you never psych it."

I don't think the RA can get away with that, as it directly contradicts Law 40C.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-22, 02:26, said:

The two sentences I've quoted above don't really belong in the same set of rules: the first one says the RA can classify anything as an SPU, and the second seems to say that it can't.

The first says that RAs can designate some PUs as SPUs, and the second explains the criteria it should use to do so. "certain" doesn't mean "any".

[barmar]

I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. When I'm 4-4 in the minors, I pretty much always open 1♦. He varies. I recently mentioned in a discussion that I'm consistent, he's random. He corrected me, saying it's not random. But he's never explained his actual criteria to me, and I've never picked up on it by myself.

So just because someone has a style, it doesn't mean you'll be able to disclose it.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2014-November-22, 19:25, said:

I've been playing with my regular partner for about a dozen years. When I'm 4-4 in the minors, I pretty much always open 1♦. He varies. I recently mentioned in a discussion that I'm consistent, he's random. He corrected me, saying it's not random. But he's never explained his actual criteria to me, and I've never picked up on it by myself.

So just because someone has a style, it doesn't mean you'll be able to disclose it.

IMO, The law is a bit woolly. Some players use "Style" (like "GBK") to rationalize non-disclosure. What you know about partner's style is an implicit understanding. Hence, even under current law, it's disclosable. For example, when Barmar or his partner open 1♣ and an opponent asks about the auction, at any stage, then

• Barmar should say e.g. "Partner may open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors", whereas
• His partner should say "With 4-4 in the minors, partner would open 1♦"

Is this a counsel of perfection?

[Trinidad]

Nigel, you are continuously mixing style or partnership agreements with GBK.

Style and partnership agreements belong to the partnership. It is not only about "Do we play Multi?", but also about "Would we open a Multi on ♠75 ♥KJT865 ♦632 ♣73? (And if so, at what seat and vulnerability.) You need to disclose the agreements and the style.

General Bridge Knowledge is everything that is not partnership specific. An example could be that a reasonably advanced player knows that game in a 4-4 fit might play better than game in a 5-3 fit. Therefore, he will/might explore for a 4-4 fit in hearts when there is a known 5-3 fit in spades, where somebody fresh from the bridge course will count 8 spades, 26 HCPs and bids 4♠ ("well done!"). That has nothing to do with the partnership, the player can use this knowledge with any partner, which is why it is called General Bridge Knowledge. You do not need to disclose that a 4-4 fit might play better than a 5-3 fit.

Rik

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-23, 03:00, said:

Nigel, you are continuously mixing style or partnership agreements with GBK. Style and partnership agreements belong to the partnership. It is not only about "Do we play Multi?", but also about "Would we open a Multi on ♠75 ♥KJT865 ♦632 ♣73? (And if so, at what seat and vulnerability.) You need to disclose the agreements and the style. General Bridge Knowledge is everything that is not partnership specific. An example could be that a reasonably advanced player knows that game in a 4-4 fit might play better than game in a 5-3 fit. Therefore, he will/might explore for a 4-4 fit in hearts when there is a known 5-3 fit in spades, where somebody fresh from the bridge course will count 8 spades, 26 HCPs and bids 4♠ ("well done!"). That has nothing to do with the partnership, the player can use this knowledge with any partner, which is why it is called General Bridge Knowledge. You do not need to disclose that a 4-4 fit might play better than a 5-3 fit.

IMO few bidding agreements are GBK -- and almost none of those belatedly described as such by opponents.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-November-23, 03:44, said:

IMO few bidding agreements are GBK -- and almost none of those belatedly described as such by opponents.

Bidding agreements are never GBK.

(Except that two partners can share their GBK and learn from each other. Then what used to be GBK, now is a bidding agreement. E.g.: we will try to find a 4-4 fit even if we already have a 5-3 fit.)

Rik

[Fluffy]

 hrothgar, on 2014-November-21, 12:02, said:

What's silly is putting this sort of stuff down in writing (cause I for one am forwarding this to your national organization and I hope the treat you the same way they treated the good Doctors)

I suggest you find a good translator first, your best argument is threatening me? really?

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-23, 04:04, said:

Bidding agreements are never GBK.

(Except that two partners can share their GBK and learn from each other. Then what used to be GBK, now is a bidding agreement. E.g.: we will try to find a 4-4 fit even if we already have a 5-3 fit.)

If they had to share it, it was merely BK, not GBK.

The example you give is certainly not GBK. Widely believed, yes, but that's not the same as generally known.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2014-November-23, 00:01, said:

IMO, The law is a bit woolly. Some players use "Style" (like "GBK") to rationalize non-disclosure. What you know about partner's style is an implicit understanding. Hence, even under current law, it's disclosable. For example, when Barmar or his partner open 1♣ and an opponent asks about the auction, at any stage, then

• Barmar should say e.g. "Partner may open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors", whereas
• His partner should say "With 4-4 in the minors, partner would open 1♦"

Is this a counsel of perfection?

Of course I would disclose that he doesn't always bid 1♦ with 4-4. The point I was making is that I can't disclose his criteria for choosing between 1♣ and 1♦.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-23, 10:50, said:

If they had to share it, it was merely BK, not GBK.

The example you give is certainly not GBK. Widely believed, yes, but that's not the same as generally known.

The key thing is the difference between "general" and "partnership specific", not whether it is "knowledge", "a belief" or an "old wife's tale".

And if it is your GBK that this is an old wife's tale then you don't need to disclose that at the table.

Rik

[blackshoe]

The term is "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". What does "matters generally known to bridge players" encompass?

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 23:02, said:

The term is "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". What does "matters generally known to bridge players" encompass?

E.g. that you need ~25 points for game, that more total trumps tends to mean more total tricks, that down 1 can be good bridge, that a 4-4 fit might play better (at game level or higher) than a 5-3 fit, or 3NT often scores better than 4M with a 3334 opposite 5332.

This is knowledge that bridge players gather over their bridge career that is not related to their partner or partnership.

Rik

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-23, 03:00, said:

Nigel, you are continuously mixing style or partnership agreements with GBK.

Are you sure? Trinidad and some opponents seem more confused than I am.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2014-November-23, 21:27, said:

Of course I would disclose that he doesn't always bid 1♦ with 4-4. The point I was making is that I can't disclose his criteria for choosing between 1♣ and 1♦.

I would expect no less and understand your point.

[paulg]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-23, 23:02, said:

The term is "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". What does "matters generally known to bridge players" encompass?

I've always believed that this is dependent on the event and it applies to those people competing in the event. So in the Spingold, it is generally known that opening bids in third seat at favourable vulnerability may be significantly lighter than normal. This is not the case at my local club. At a district or national tournament, it is generally known that most partnerships play transfers in response to one notrump. At my club, it is generally known that pre-empts promise two of the top three honours, this is not the case at a tournament.

If there is no such caveat, then as club players greater outnumber tournament players then 'generally known' can only work to the lowest common denominator. And even Rik's list is beyond many of those at my club despite decades of enjoying their bridge.

A consequence of this is that when a pair plays up, they can be disadvantaged because they don't know what is 'generally known'. This is often where the problem starts.

[nige1]

 paulg, on 2014-November-24, 05:19, said:

I've always believed that this is dependent on the event and it applies to those people competing in the event. So in the Spingold, it is generally known that opening bids in third seat at favourable vulnerability may be significantly lighter than normal. This is not the case at my local club. At a district or national tournament, it is generally known that most partnerships play transfers in response to one notrump. At my club, it is generally known that pre-empts promise two of the top three honours, this is not the case at a tournament.

If there is no such caveat, then as club players greater outnumber tournament players then 'generally known' can only work to the lowest common denominator. And even Rik's list is beyond many of those at my club despite decades of enjoying their bridge.

A consequence of this is that when a pair plays up, they can be disadvantaged because they don't know what is 'generally known'. This is often where the problem starts.

Paul is right that "GBK" varies from clique to clique, from place to place and from time to time. And I like Paul's examples. e.g

You would have succeeded in your contract, had you known that opponent's pre-empt showed 2 top honours. Unfortunately, opponents believe this to be a matter generally known to bridge-players. And the director agrees with them!

In the UK, at one time, it was "GBK" at all levels, that a double of a pre-emt was penalty

The Wagar appeal is a painful example of bidding misunderstanding or misinformation in a simple auction; and the rarity of GBK, even at the top level of bridge. It hinged on the meaning of the second pass in the sequence Pass (1♦) Double (Redouble); Pass

[Trinidad]

 paulg, on 2014-November-24, 05:19, said:

If there is no such caveat, then as club players greater outnumber tournament players then 'generally known' can only work to the lowest common denominator. And even Rik's list is beyond many of those at my club despite decades of enjoying their bridge.

That is the point: It is allowed to have more skills and experience than your opponents. You are allowed to be a better bridge player and have better judgement. You are allowed to get an edge by reading about the LoTT. The opponents are not entitled to a level playing field when it comes to your general bridge knowledge. The best may win.

But the opponents are entitled to everything you know about your partner (well... err... bridgewise) and all the agreements that you have made and habits that you have formed.

So, the distinction is "partnership" <-> "general". You disclose what is specific to the partnership, you don't (have to) disclose what is "general".

That means, Nige1, that obviously you disclose it when your preempt shows two of the top three. That is an agreement you have with your partner. Preemptive style may not be alertable, but it needs to be disclosed according to the regulations (which means in practice: "whenever an opponent asks, you tell").

Rik

[barmar]

Where does something like "natural bidding means you normally bid suits in decreasing order of length" fall, is that GBK? The fact that a particular pair bids naturally is a PU, but it seems like the general idea of natural bidding, and that it's in use unless the pair alerts that they're playing a canape system, seems general to me.