[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

[Steve Willner]

> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> 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.

The Latin phrase is premature.  Is a correct answer communication? Or 
more specifically, would an SO or WBFLC interpretation that it is _not_ 
communication within the meaning of L73A1 be outside the bounds of other 
interpretations we've been given?

> So Steve's law change idea
[correct alerts and answers to questions would be AI]
> would give a second benefit to
> sides who play wacky conventions.  In addition to surprising
> the opponents with novelty, the wacky sides would gain some
> insurance against them forgetting the complexities of their
> own wacky agreements by permitting pard to AI remind them.

Again I ask, why is this a bad thing?  Or rather, why is it worse than 
the present situation?  If you dislike "wacky conventions," why isn't 
the proper approach to prohibit them?

Whether conventions are wacky or not, some players are going to misbid. 
Others are going to psych.  The question is what should happen when 
partner gives a correct explanation of the agreement.  Right now, the 
player is in an invidious UI position, whether the question was normal 
or gratuitous.  Further, the player has no chance to recover, as he 
often would in isolation.  Finally, if a score adjustment is needed, the 
TD will have to invent some fantasy bidding system.  These are real 
problems.