[blml] alertability

[Sven Pran]

Thanks for your clarifying statements below, I must admit that for a moment
I got scared but I see that we are completely in agreement on this matter.

It occasionally happens that when I ask my "standard" question I get a first
response "which call do you want explained" or words to a similar effect. I
then just tell that I want a full description, not of the actual hands but
of the hands as they have been described according to their agreements by
their auction.

I have found my "standard" question very efficient in all respects for both
sides.

Regards Sven

> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> > > > 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 ~         +=+