[blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question?

[Steve Willner]

> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> I do not see why UI caused by a break in tempo should be treated
> differently to UI caused by an incorrect explanation.

If the BiT tells something about unseen cards, we use the normal UI 
Laws.  No problem.  It's hard for me to imagine that a BiT can tell 
something else, and I'd have to be convinced that the "something else" 
really is UI.

> a player who has just misbid gains UI from their partner's _correct_
> explanation 

This, on the other hand, is a real problem.  As things stand today, the 
correct explanation is deemed to be UI, fully as serious as any other 
UI.  That wasn't always true; from 1975 to 1987, the correct explanation 
was deemed UI but a less serious form.

While I don't have an answer I am entirely comfortable with, I think the 
present treatment of correct explanations is badly flawed.  Misbids plus 
correct explanaions often force TD's to invent fantasy bidding systems, 
and there's no objective way to do that.  Further, gratuitous questions 
that place opponents in a UI position are rewarded, and I don't think 
that's the way the game should be played.

Jeff Rubens -- with whom I don't share much agreement on what the Laws 
ought to be -- has suggested that correct alerts and explanations should 
be AI.  As I say, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I think 
it's better than what we have.  At any rate, I think preserving the 
principle I've stated and changing how we rule these cases would be an 
improvement.