[blml] FW: alertability

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 17:28 21/12/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote:
>there is no clause in Law
>20 (or elsewhere) that makes leading questions or questions on specific
>calls illegal. That is why I use the word "improper".
>
>The consequence of an "improper" question is that the amount of UI caused by
>this question can be greater than it should have been with the correct
>procedure.

There are cases where those "improper" questions are necessary. I remember 
having mentioned this case before, but it seems pertinent again.

We have an agreement that, unless specifically discussed on seeing opp's 
CC, we treat :
- all NF 1C opening bids as natural ;
- all F1 1C openings as strong, even if they aren't (eg Roman Club, Swedish 
2-step) ;
with very different approaches to overcalling.
Notice that this is allowed in our country.

1C, alert, I ask for an explanation, and get a list of 11 meanings, some of 
which are rather obscure.
Now, only one thing will help me, and I ask : "please tell me, is that bid 
forcing ?"
If this is disallowed, how can I know ? (dealing with UI is a horse of 
another color)

Remember that an explanation should include all interesting features of the 
bid, not features of responses to it, for obvious UI reasons. Also, 
"forcing / NF" might mean something else than "requesting / not requesting 
another bid"(e.g. you'll alert "NF free bids" by PH, because it means 
something else than "might incidentally be passed by weak opener"). For 
those reasons, it is felt that "F/ NF" isn't one of those "interesting 
features".

Best regards,

   Alain