[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Richard Hills]

(d) Mister Hills will summon the Director, who will
require,

(e) Mister Hills to leave the table, so that

(f) Mister Hills' partner can explain to the opponents
the implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding
without

(g) Mister Hills receiving any UI from partner's
explanation, and also without

(h) Mister Hills' partner receiving any UI from Mister
Hills' incorrect (or correct) "guess".

What's the problem?

[nigel]

Many BLMLers agree that the solution described by Richard should 
become law, because it encourages players to admit to their agreements 
just to avoid this time-wasting palaver.

If he is not too busy, a director will sometimes ask an opponent if he 
has an agreement. He may even examine opponent's convention card. But 
I have never heard of a case where a director has insisted that the 
caller explain his own call after ensuring that his partner is out of 
earshot.

Unfortunately, this protocol does NOT seem to be detailed in the 
law-book. And unless the law-book explicitly and specifically endorses 
it, if only as a last resort, I doubt I will ever see it used.

This is another area, where established on-line practice is pointing 
the way ahead for the WBFLC

Ed Reppert believes that such discussions are pointless as he believes 
that no radical law reform will occur for another 10 years. I hope he 
is wrong and that that there will soon be some simplifications, 
because I fear that current f2f laws are hastening the demise of the 
game I enjoy.