[blml] The term "cue"

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> > If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a perfectly
> > correct answer to an improper question!
> 
> Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a complete
> description of the partnership agreement". :-)
> 
> I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players would
> learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. <shrug>


A question shall be for explanation of the whole auction (so far), not of
any specific call made. (Law 20F1).

I do not know the ACBL regulations but either they should accept "yes" or
"no" as an answer to an improper question where such answers appear
adequate, or they should request that the answer to any question related to
the auction or part thereof, whether improper or not, to be a _complete_
explanation of the entire auction (so far)?   Do they?

A specific question related to a particular call is a violation of Law 20F1
and must be considered equivalent to an extraneous remark. Any answer that
directly addresses such a question should IMO be considered adequate.

Regards Sven