[blml] The term "cue"

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> 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.

Fair enough. Even in the ACBL, an alert means the same thing. One  
difference, however, is that the ACBL regulation requires complete  
disclosure of the meaning of the alerted call in response to *any*  
question - including, in practice, a raised eyebrow or the like.

> 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?

My experience is with the ACBL regulation, which does have such a  
provision. I was trying to find out how our two regulations differ.

> 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.

This seems disingenuous. Clearly, if a player wants to know why  
someone alerted, knowledge of that interest is "extraneous" and may  
be UI.

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

<shrug> Chacun a son gout. :-)