[blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

> >
> > Bouncing a question off an opponent so that
> > partner knows what you already know is not,
> > in my opinion, a legitimate bridge reason.
> >
> +=+ A demonstrable bridge reason?  I agree
> that it is not.    ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>

I am not sure what this means exactly, but the topic under discussion
is clearing up a case of *possible* MI.  Either the lack of alert was
wrong, or the convention card was wrong.  (In my experience with
apparent failures to alert in the first round of bidding, the card is
wrong maybe 10% or 20% of the time.)  Those who would rather allow the
probable MI to stand have not addressed the issues of failing to
protect oneself as required under law and taking double shots.  I
cannot tell which side Grattan is on the issue.

It is not a matter of two wrongs making a right, its a matter of one
wrong + one right (opponent's probable MI + you attempt to clear it
up) vs. two wrongs (opponent's probable MI + let the probably MI
remain, guess whether it is MI or not, fail to protect yourself as
required under law, and take your double shot).

It seems to me that even David Burn recommends clearing up MI as long
as it can be done with neutral, nonmisleading, nonoffending questions.

What I would really like to know is this:  Is this distrust of
clearing up probable MI in a proper, neutral way merely an ivory-tower
concern, or are there any logged cases where NOs clearing up this kind
of MI with a proper question or director call was judged wrong?

-Jerry Fusselman