[blml] New L27

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> IMO the only really relevant part of that law is as related to
> irregularities.
> 
> You are not allowed to communicate with your partner by asking, not asking
> or replying to questions. 

Indeed.

> Although your partner will obviously notice any
> such activity he is prohibited from selecting any action among alternatives
> based on his knowledge of it.

If the information is UI and suggests one action over another, partner 
may be _required_ to take it into account (1997 L16A).

> "Such action" includes varying partnership
> understandings.

Probably true.

> Consequently I see no way a partnership can legally vary their
> understandings following questions asked or replied to regardless of what a
> regulating authority may have decided.

What about _opponents'_ questions?  I gave the example of our artificial 
1D bid.  Suppose an opponent makes a direct 2D overcall.  Of course we 
ask what it means and are told "No agreement; we've never discussed your 
kind of 1D bid."  Why can't we vary our agreements according to whether 
the 2D bidder did or did not ask the meaning of 1D.  (We know perfectly 
well what the overcaller is showing, and it's different depending on 
whether he asked about 1D or not.)