[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> from Grattan Endicott
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
> [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
> ****************************
> "The best words in the best order"
>                           ~ S T Coleridge.
> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish 
>                     Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> 
> 
>>> {Nigel]
>>> I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a 
>>> pair adopt an untrammelled *standard system* 
>>> convention card (or one with deletions but no 
>>> additions) then they should not be penalised for  
>>> misinformation; but it is even better to allow them 
>>> to consult the card, as Richard suggests.
>>   (Ed)
>> "A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice 
>> tournament".
>>
> +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation 
> were to allow a player to consult his own convention card 
> when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for 
> a literal interpretation of L40E2.)
>                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 

What would be the point? If he does consult it, he would be deemed to 
have forgotten his agreement. His partner would have UI, his opponents 
useful (non-entitled) information. This is exactly the same situation 
as if he simply tells the table he is uncertain and gives the CC to 
his opponents to search for the meaning. But, in addition, the player 
would now have UI as to the meaning of partner's call, and this UI 
would force him to misinterpret it. At least, without looking, he has 
some chance of getting the meaning correct.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be