[blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file

[Robert Geller]

>+=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce  
>the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-)

<snark>
Why take half measures?  Instead of making the call "double" let's just
change the rules so you can say, "I double that for penalties" or "I double
that for takeout" or "I'll make an optional double of that".    This minor
rules change would eliminate all the problems that come up over MI and UI now.
</snark>

-Bob



Grattan Endicott writes:
>
>Grattan Endicott
>grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
>[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
>*************************
>"A finished product is one that 
>has already seen its better days."
>                 {Art Linkletter}
>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Guthrie" <guthrie at ntlworld.com>
>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure -> Kill-file
>
>
>> 
>> [Herman]
>> But you seemed to think that announcing would be better than alerting,
>> I merely pointed out that the problems that seem to exist with
>> alerting are also present with announcing. And then some.
>> 
>+=+ We would avoid those problems if we were required to announce  
>the meaning of our own bid at every turn...... +=+ :-)

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com