[blml] Belgian Honour division case two

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 16:08 27/11/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote:
>Herman wrote:
>
> > I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the
> > information about the meaning of the call.
>
>I can think of two reasons why one might ask.  One might be worried
>about the need to "protect oneself" against a TD ruling that one should
>have suspected a possible non-alert or one might be about to give an
>explanation of partner's call which hinges on his awareness of the
>alertability the opposing call.

I had a similar case (no screens). I knew about their system, partner didn't.

                 YT
1C      2C      2S alert

2C is self-alertable.
Question about 2S. Partner : "tell me what 2C means and I'll tell you what 
2S means".
I coudn't ask about 2C, that would have been a "pro question", wouldn't it ?

Now, insert screens ... it all depends on whether 2C was duly alerted (no 
self-alert in this case).

Best regards

    Alain