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

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills (previous post):
> 
>>> That is, Steve's proposed law change
> 
> Steve Willner:
> 
>> [that correct answers to opponents' questions should be AI]
>>
>> Change of interpretation, I think, not Law.
> 
> Law 73A1:
> 
> "Communication between partners during the auction and play
> shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays
> themselves."
> 
> Richard Hills (current post):
> 
> A correct answer to an opponent's question is not a call nor
> is it a play.  Quod erat demonstrandum.
> 

Sometimes I think you guys have never played bridge in your lives and 
are just reading the law in an Ivory tower. Yesterday evening, I 
played 30 boards, in 20 of which we bid something. In 19 of those, my 
partner correctly explained (or at least alerted or not alerted) my 
calls. At an average of 2 bids per board, that's 40 pieces of UI I 
received. If after every such piece of information I should have had 
to bend over backwards and not do the expected next thing, I would 
have ended up with 15% or so (50% if my opponents would have been 
doing the same - but that would not have been bridge).

Yes, a correct explanation is UI. And NO, we never rule it that way.

So to all intents and purposes, a correct explanation IS AI at the 
moment. And it should stay that way.

BTW: on the 20th deal I bid 1Di-3Cl intending to show my majors. 
Partner did not alert and bid 4Cl over 3Di. I do believe I have enough 
AI (we had not reiterated our agreements before the session and it's 
not a very usual partner) to take that out. As it was, my RHO, looking 
at 5 clubs himself, decided to not take the gamble and bid 5Di.


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