[blml] alertability

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner
..........
> 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.

True, but that does not make leading questions proper.

> 
> *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.

Law 20F: During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his
own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction
(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls
available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of
a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C).

It is specifically illegal (Law 20B) to have only a part of an auction
restated, and it is considered improper (when playing without screens) to
ask for an explanation of a specific call that has been made. This of course
includes leading questions.

Still this happens so regularly that it by necessity is treated as legal and
OK, however with the risk of passing more unauthorized information to
partner than would have been the case had correct procedure been followed.

Regards Sven