[blml] alertability

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Never laugh at live dragons."
                     'The Hobbit'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] alertability


> > >
> > > 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?
> 
+=+ I am absolutely not saying that.  Indeed he 
should ask for a full explanation. The weakness of the 
1997 Laws is the dispersal of statements on one subject.
In this case we go to 75C to find a further statement 
concerning the responsibility of the player who is asked 
for a full explanation. He shall disclose all special 
information conveyed to him through partnership 
agreement of partnership experience. And yes, these 
terms do cover information gleaned from the fact that 
partner has not selected an alternative call that is 
available. But do you think that your player responding 
to a holistic question is any more likely to think of 
and explain all the possible alternatives? The need 
will remain for the questioner to be able to supplement 
his question with enquiry about one or more call(s) 
that were available but not made. If he is to know what 
call(s) to ask about he must know what calls have been
explained by the holistic response. Otherwise he is 
guessing blindly concerning the addditional knowledge 
to be sought. That is how it seems to me, and that is 
my point.  +=+ 
<
> 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?
> 
+=+ It is proper. Because the responder knows that 
the authority given in the laws is specifically to request 
a full explanation, nothing less at this stage, whatever 
the terms of the question put, so far as the law goes 
it should be responded to as a request for a full 
explanation. (I am aware of the impracticality of the 
law as it stands and I argue for change. The problem 
under the 1997 laws is that, technically at least, the 
responder who does not explain fully is always liable. 
Curtailment of the question is an extenuating factor 
not absolution -  question and answer regarding
an individual call are regarded as misdemeanours 
rather than felonies because the practice prevails.) 
                                ~ G ~         +=+