[blml] The term "cue"

[Eric Landau]

At 12:39 PM 6/27/06, Guthrie wrote:

>IMO TFLB should specify ...
>
>[A] An acceptable form of words that an opponent
>should use in a question about a call.
>
>[B] that your answer should include details of the
>strength and shape of partner's hand that may be
>gleaned from all partner's calls in the auction
>(but, of course exclude details, that you know
>only by virtue of the contents of your own hand).
>Such a description would be usefully informative
>and save time.
>
>[C] that an opponent may ask a specific question,
>only as a follow-up to the general question, and
>only when your answer seems incomplete.
>
>[D] that you may not use "General knowledge" or
>"I'm not absolutely sure" as legally acceptable
>reasons for non-disclosure.

IMO this is a truly bad idea.  I was about to write a point-by-point 
discourse on why it's a truly bad idea, but then realized that I'd be 
largely paraphrasing my recent remarks on "active ethics" that I wrote 
in reply to Marv.  Nigel's suggestions would merely provide more fodder 
for players of less than sterling ethics to parse to death (us, too, of 
course, but we do it for fun, where it doesn't affect any at-the-table 
opponents).  Sure, there are players out there who don't seem -- or 
want -- to know what the first sentence of L75 means, but a whole lot 
of precise supporting regulation trying to pin down *exactly* what it 
means (such as mandating "an acceptable form of words") will only make 
it harder to see -- and enforce, albeit informally -- its obvious 
implications.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607