[blml] alertability

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> From: "Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
> > IMO,  rather than insist that you describe each
> > alerted call in the auction, the law should recommend
> > that you answer the question "From your partner's
> > calls what can you tell about his hand?"
> >
> > Apart from the main meaning of each individual call,
> > there are subtle inferences that gradually accumulate
> > into significance during successive calls; and
> > probabilities that reinforce each other to become
> > near certainties.
> >
> > IMO, most players feel justified in refraining from
> > divulging such holistic understandings.
> >
> +=+ And yet, a player is authorized to ask
> questions ...."about relevant calls available
> but not made".  If he is not given the meaning
> of each call made does it not become far too
> complicated to identify what of this kind may
> be asked about? +=+

But Law 21F1 states: "... any player ... may request a full explanation of
opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or
about relevant calls available but not made), ..."

Are you saying that the clauses within the parenthesis prohibit a player
from requesting "a full explanation" using the statement suggested by Nigel,
i.e. that he must request explanations individually of each call made and
relevant calls not made, one by one?

Or as the question I prefer to make as a defender after the closing pass and
before the opening lead: "From the auction: What are we entitled to know
about your hands?"  

Is this question improper? I consider it a perfect request for a full
explanation of opponents' entire auction?

 
> > Apart from improving disclosure, it would
> > save time.
> >
> +=+ I have doubts about that because of the
> tenuous nature of meaning detached from its
> sources.            ~ G ~   +=+

>From my own experience I tend to agree with Nigel here.

Regards Sven