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