[blml] alertability

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 14:38 21/12/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote:

> > b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know
> > whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask.
>
>This is precisely why leading questions are "questionable".
>
>Law 75C: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply
>to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special
>information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
>experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general
>knowledge and experience.

I do agree. However, it has been expressed before on blml that any question 
should be taken as "please explain", so that e.g.
- if one asks you the range of that 2H opening, you have to volunteer the 
explanation that it is two-suited ;
- if one asks you whether you play weak twos (following e.g. your 2H 
passed-hand overcall), you must volunteer the explanation that you play Multi.

*even if that's not what was asked*

So, although leading questions should be avoided, they should also be 
treated as legalg. I've never felt at ease with that principle, and that's 
why I told in the discussion under question.
FWIW, I'd welcome a ruling that leading questions are disallowed altogether.

Best regards

   Alain