[blml] New L27

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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.)

Would you classify the information that opponents ask questions as included
in

"information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of
opponents" 

or as:  "other extraneous information"?

IMO calling it "mannerism" is far fetched.

Regards Sven