[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

[Steve Willner]

> Grattan Endicott wrote:
>>+=+ 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.)

I'd have said it would call for a change in L40E2, but perhaps I'm 
underestimating the ingenuity of the WBFLC or some SOs.

From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> If he does consult it, he would be deemed to 
> have forgotten his agreement.

Even under current laws, I don't think this is correct, though the 
effect may be much the same.  The player has violated L40E2, so we go to 
L12A1/12C2 and ask, in effect, what would have happened if the 
infraction had not occurred.

I think, though, that Grattan's proposal was to make looking _legal_, 
and all the information seen would be AI.  It is an interesting 
proposal, though quite a change from today's rules.

> But, in addition, the player 
> would now have UI as to the meaning of partner's call,

No, one's own system is always AI.  If one comes by knowledge of it 
illegally, we deal with that infraction, not the knowledge itself. 
(There is one exception, which I've mentioned in response to Richard. 
He hasn't said why he thinks the current interpretation is so important.)