[blml] The term "cue"

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> I am not aware of any Norwegian regulation on this matter, we have  
> the laws.

Hm. Norway does not have an "Alert" regulation, specifying certain  
calls to which attention must be drawn so that opponents will be  
aware they might want to ask questions? I suppose such a regulation  
might say that questions must be IAW Law 20, so that after an alert,  
one must request an explanation of the entire auction, but that seems  
naive to me - if a question is asked immediately after an alert, it  
seems extremely likely that the questioner is interested in the  
meaning of the alerted call. OTOH, I suppose an alert regulation need  
not, in itself, say anything about the form of questions engendered  
by an alert, leaving it, as you say, up to the laws.

This is, it seems to me, a knotty problem, since the laws try to  
reduce the amount of UI generated by questions and answers to  
questions by not pinpointing (at first, at least) specific calls,  
while all the alert regulations of which I'm aware allow* (or  
require, depending on how you look at it) questions to *start* by  
pinpointing a specific call. I would think we would want to resolve  
this conflict somehow, but apparently the lawmakers, at least in the  
ACBL, don't agree. <shrug>

*I just looked at the WBF alert reg - it says simply that certain  
calls should be alerted - it says nothing about either the form of  
the alert or the form of questions asked in response to the alert -  
it does say that the spirit as well as the letter of both the laws  
and the alert regulation must be followed. I suppose that could be  
read as an oblique reference to Law 20. I wonder how, in practice,  
things are done in WBF events.