[blml] The term "cue"

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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 didn't say that? Sure we have an alert regulation. But this regulation
specifies objective criteria for when a call shall be alerted rather than
specifying particular alertable calls (except that the regulation includes
examples on calls that meet the criteria for alerting). 
These criteria do not depend upon what are "common" or "uncommon"
conventions, and what is more important: We enforce a principle that nobody
shall ever be penalized for alerting a call that need not be alerted. An
alert simply means: "You might want to ask about this call". Furthermore our
directors are instructed to be very careful about awarding any redress for
alleged damage caused by missing alert of a call that shall be described on
the front page of our convention cards. 

I do not see how our alert regulation has anything to do with the fact that
we have no explicit regulation on explanations but just apply the laws?

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.

And a common question when a player alerts is just "WHY (the alert)?" 
This technically asks about the alert as such and not about the specific
call, thus avoiding the problem from Law 20F. 

And I believe it is a sensible compromise between "alerting" opponents about
possible surprises and overloading them with extensive verbal explanations.

Regards Sven