[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: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis,
                  part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Grattan Endicott wrote:
> >>
> > +=+ 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 ~   +=+
> 
> So let's recap: if you believe that they have failed to 
> alert properly, but you are not 100% certain of their 
> system, you are allowed to ask for a clarification; 
> but if you are certain, you are not?
> 
> How can anyone ever be 100% certain of what 
> system his opponents are playing - even their CC 
> cannot be trusted!
> 
+=+ I do not think your premise is in total accord with 
my statement. 
       If giving a ruling the Director has to determine on 
the balance of probability whether the player has asked 
the question out of his own need to know or in order to 
ensure that partner knows.  If, for example, questioner's 
action will be unaffected by the answer to his question 
but his partner's action may be, it is open to the Director 
to deem that logically the probable purpose of enquiry is 
to inform partner via the response. 
                             ~ Grattan ~  +=+