[blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ron Johnson]

Tim West-Meads writes:
> 
> Ben wrote:
> 
> > 
> > So the answer "weak" or "yes" is not complete.
> 
> Incomplete is not the same as being an infraction.  I can't remember the 
> last time I gave a "complete" answer (one disclosing the totality of my 
> partnership experience) to a simple question from opps.

Likewise, but ...
> 
> In Alain's example the opponent has been informed (by the alert) that 
> the bid is not natural.  The opponent has chosen to enquire as to the 
> point count rather than the nature of the hand so the answer "yes" to 
> the query "weak?" is surely sufficient.  However, had the question been 
> "Please explain?" an answer of "weak" would be insufficient.
> If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for their 
> questions.
> 
I can't think of a worse policy than one that requires players
to ask questions "correctly".

After brooding on this for a while the best I can come up with
is a directive placing the emphasis on players with complex
or non-standard agreements to make sure that their opponents
are properly informed. (Yes, this might be tough to write
up. There's no meeting of the minds as to what constitutes
complex or non-standard)

The ACBL appears to have an informal policy  for Meckwell
(I can cite a couple of rulings that hold Meckwell to
higher disclosure obligations) in this area and I think 
it's a good general policy.