[blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Ed Reppert - A]
> Heh. even simple conventions can fall prey to
> that. Particularly when the asker is trying to
> ferret out subtle details. Example. P-1S-2C
> (uncontested auction). Now opponent asks what 2C
> means.
> Explanation:  Drury.
> Now, in the ACBL, and in most other
jurisdictions
> as well, AFAIK, naming a convention is not
enough,
> so... next question: tell me more, please.
> Answer: Huh? It's Drury, wtp?
> Q: Explain what the  bid means, please, don't
> just name it.
> A: Okay, he's showing a limit  raise.
> Q: What would 3S mean?
> A: limit raise*.
> Q: so what's the  difference between 2C and 3S?
> A: Director! This is harassment!

[Ed Reppert B & C]
> Heh. Team game tonight. Relatively experienced
> opponents. The auction, partner having dealt:
> 1D-(X)-P-(1H)-2D-(P)-P-(X)-P-2S-all pass.
> Before leading, I asked for an explanation of
> the auction.  Declarer gave me a review. I
> thanked him and asked for an explanation  of
> the auction. :-)
> I'm told "standard".
> I ask for further  information.
> LHO says he doesn't understand what I'm asking.
> I said  "I want to know what you know about your
> partner's hand, and what he  knows about yours".
> LHO calls the director and asks "what am I
> supposed to tell him?"
> Director says "What did you tell him?"
> He says "that it was standard".
> Director says to me "it's standard, Ed."
> After a pause he says "what else do you want
> to know?"
> I gave up, and said "tell me about LHO's
double."
> "He wants me to bid". Pfui.

> Much the same thing had happened earlier this
> evening, against another pair.

[nige1]
Most other BLMLers never seem to suffer this
kind of frustration and accuse me of paranoia. It
is a relief to me that even one other BLMLer
admits to similar experiences.

Such opponents don't cheat deliberately but the
law
goes out of its way to encourage them to
rationalize obfuscation. For example...

[a] If you aren't certain, you must not guess.
[b] Don't divulge general knowledge.
[c] Don't put up with "harassment".
[d] You should avoid specific questions
(potential UI).
[e] You must avoid a question that would largely
confirm your expectations if it might divulge
opponents' methods to partner (Pro question)
[f] If called and if they have the time, some
directors can extract buried nuggets; but others
react the same way as Ed's director did - thus
reinforcing concealment.
[g] Several BLMLers say that detail just tends to
confuse. (: A problem of which nobody I know has
complained :) In that difficult to imagine
eventuality, however, why can't you give a brief
summary but immediately offer to supply more
detail.
[h] Prevarication is rarely penalized. I'm told
there
was one case with a Polish 1N overcall. Can
anybody relate another case?