[CSGibson]

Recently, when asked what a 3rd seat 3 diamond call, my partner said "preemptive, but 3rd seat anything goes as to quality/quantity of diamonds". It got me thinking as to whether we have an obligation to tell opponents tendancies, like preempts aggressively 3rd seat, when they ask about bids.

What are our obligations to explain implied knowledge after an auction has occurred in which we won the contract? Under full disclosure, are we obligated to explain, for example, that someone would tend not to have 3 card support for partner's suit because a support double was not used? Or should we wait for opponents to ask?

[P_Marlowe]

If you take open discolusre serious, you should tell it in
one go, ... if you can think about all consequences.

Regarding your last question: sure, because they
may or may not think about asking.

The oppoenents can expect full disclosure, but they have also
to accept that you may not realize that certain inferences are
relevant for them / or you know them only inconscious, ...
thats they are allowed and have to ask about things you may
not have mentioned.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

Your obligations are to alert as per the regulations and fully disclose your partnership agreements when asked. The ACBL also requires you to pre-alert certain partnership agreements, such as light pre-empting style.

The grey area is always negative inferences, such as not using a support double. Generally these negative inferences have been deemed not to be alertable, not least because you'd alert most calls in the auctions and then the alert system is failing.

However, when asked the question "what have you both shown?", I would explain the negative inferences available due to our methods ("a support double was available, but it's not mandatory").

Paul