yet another hesitation

[barmar]

I guess a good test for whether you think something is GBK is whether you would make the undiscussed bid with a pick-up partner, or in an indy. Unless my partner seems like a beginner, I would make that 3♥ bid, that's why I think it's GBK.

[nige1]

When an opponent cites a treatment as "GBK", it's usually the first time I've met it. The concept is practically useful mainly to those unwilling to divulge their agreements. Almost always, it would be fairer, simpler and quicker to describe their understandings.

[Vampyr]

I guess a good test for whether you think something is GBK is whether you would make the undiscussed bid with a pick-up partner, or in an indy. Unless my partner seems like a beginner, I would make that 3♥ bid, that's why I think it's GBK.

 

But you would still explain the bid if asked. So I do not think it fits any definition of GBK. It is a conventional call that is well-known; so are splinters, which are used almost universally. So is Jordan/Truscott; I do not know of anyone who doesn't play this. These are artificial, conventional,bids. They are not GBK.

[barmar]

But you would still explain the bid if asked. So I do not think it fits any definition of GBK. It is a conventional call that is well-known; so are splinters, which are used almost universally. So is Jordan/Truscott; I do not know of anyone who doesn't play this. These are artificial, conventional,bids. They are not GBK.

Yes, I generally try to be helpful. But maybe this goes beyond what's technically required.

 

What does fall into the category of "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players."? Is this just general principles like it takes around 25 points to make game? But you would still have to explain how many points a GF response shows, because it depends on your partnership's style of the opening bid strength.

[mycroft]

• I would expect that "splinters exist" is GBK.
• I would expect that what splinters *show* (at least in the 'splinter' suit) is GBK.
• I think that the fact that most players at the B level or above would assume that 1M-4♦ is a splinter (and that they would do it without discussion with another B+ player) is GBK. (1M-4♣ less so; 1m-3M less so than that; splinter rebids by opener less so still,...)
• That doesn't mean that when the auction goes 1♥-4♦, you don't Alert it, and, if asked, explain "we didn't discuss it explicitly, but if it isn't GF, 4+card support, and one or fewer diamonds, I'd be shocked" (similarly, if your self-Alert is *solely* "no agreement" because you're playing BBO pickup, you're well outside the spirit of the game).
• It also doesn't mean that if you fail to Alert it, there's likely going to be recompense from the GLM who claims to have been misinformed by the failure to Alert.
• I also don't think any of the GBK thoughts apply to mini-maxi Single JS splinters, Keri (or Precision) one-under splinters, self-splinters, or whether in competition you only splinter in opponents' suits or not.

[pran]

• I would expect that "splinters exist" is GBK.
• I would expect that what splinters *show* (at least in the 'splinter' suit) is GBK.
• I think that the fact that most players at the B level or above would assume that 1M-4♦ is a splinter (and that they would do it without discussion with another B+ player) is GBK. (1M-4♣ less so; 1m-3M less so than that; splinter rebids by opener less so still,...)
• That doesn't mean that when the auction goes 1♥-4♦, you don't Alert it, and, if asked, explain "we didn't discuss it explicitly, but if it isn't GF, 4+card support, and one or fewer diamonds, I'd be shocked" (similarly, if your self-Alert is *solely* "no agreement" because you're playing BBO pickup, you're well outside the spirit of the game).
• It also doesn't mean that if you fail to Alert it, there's likely going to be recompense from the GLM who claims to have been misinformed by the failure to Alert.
• I also don't think any of the GBK thoughts apply to mini-maxi Single JS splinters, Keri (or Precision) one-under splinters, self-splinters, or whether in competition you only splinter in opponents' suits or not.

Don't rely upon Splinter (and variations thereof, including the fact that there is something called Splinter) being recognized as GBK. It may be in certain environments, but it is certainly not generally known.

[blackshoe]

Hm. If something or other was written up in a book somewhere, does that mean it's "generally available to bridge players"? What if the book's out of print? What if it's on the internet someplace?

[pran]

Hm. If something or other was written up in a book somewhere, does that mean it's "generally available to bridge players"? What if the book's out of print? What if it's on the internet someplace?

[...] but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Apparently the important question is not whether the knowledge is generally available to bridge players, what matters is that they generally has that knowledge.

[blackshoe]

Apparently the important question is not whether the knowledge is generally available to bridge players, what matters is that they generally has that knowledge.

It seems I mis-remembered the wording. Or I was relying on someone else's mis-wording. :blink:

[Vampyr]

What does fall into the category of "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players."? Is this just general principles like it takes around 25 points to make game?

 

I think so. You disagree with me though, and the next person who comes along is likely to disagree with both of us. The concept of GBK is a total joke, because it is not defined anywhere, so everyone is free to define it for themselves. I hope to see a definition in the next version of the Laws, but the WBFDC love nothing more than to be vague and unhelpful, and they should all be sacked and replaced but this is not going to happen.

 

You mention above that you will make a splinter with an unknown partner who is not a beginner, and you think that this convention is part of GBK. Mycroft mentioned "B level or above". Apparently there is a level of experience below which a player will probably not know "GBK". I would love to know what the accepted cutoff is. Until then GBK will remain, for me, the approximate order of the suits, and a rough idea about how many tricks are needed in each strain to make a game.

[mycroft]

It would be nice if this read as rectification rule for the TD rather than a descriptive rule for players.

 

In other words, currently the issue is that people feel they need not disclose <whatever> because it's "GBK" - "everyone knows that"; "I don't have to teach people how to bid"; whatever. I would prefer if the law read such that players are expected to fully disclose their agreements, express or implied; and in the case (and since we all know that there's always another level, this is *effectively* all cases) where full disclosure didn't happen, if, in the TD's opinion, the omission is something that is "generally known to bridge players (in this area, at this level, who play that system (and both pairs do, even if they're not today), ...)", then we can rule that the information unclearly explained did not result in damage.

 

I *hate* the fact that people attempt minimal disclosure, and get away with it. I don't want to have "GBK" be yet another way to attempt to do that.

 

Cue the descriptivists suggesting that weasel words will just mean different rulings depending on the TD; cue the "If you could play, you wouldn't be directing" people to argue that "of course that's GBK - for actual *players*". Oh well.

[barmar]

It would be nice if this read as rectification rule for the TD rather than a descriiptive rule for players.

That seems reasonable to me. Unfortunately, it's not written that way, even if it might have been the intent.