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

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************
"The best words in the best order"
                          ~ S T Coleridge.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
To: "Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk>
Cc: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question 
(precis,part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> > >
> > > 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.
> 
+=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation
of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question 
in order that partner may be aware of the information 
in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear 
up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is 
uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows
the meaning of the call and is asking because he 
thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly.
It is for partner to obtain his own information and 
not for the player to bounce the information to him 
in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal 
communication with partner.
      At the higher levels of the game it is expected 
that a player who has reason to suspect the 
information he has (and it affects his action) should 
protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. 
In the international arena it is not for him to protect 
partner in that way.  I have no knowledge of the 
ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of 
mine would be appropriate on that.
                                  ~ Grattan ~   +=+