[blml] Announcement Bridge

[Guthrie]

[Nigel]
Do partners ever act on such information, consciously or unconsciously?

Sven is right that it's hard to prove, either way. But are we asking
the right question? Surely a better question is ...

"Should the law facilitate and encourage the use of unauthorised 
information, in virtually undetectable ways?"

[Stefanie Rohan]
Certainly not. So what we need to do is come up with a solution (and not 
a  silly one like "always ask" or "announcement bridge").

[Nige1]
I've agreed with most of Stefanie's arguments in recent posts; so I'm 
disappointed that she seems to dismiss *announcement* bridge without 
discussion and without suggesting anything better. Please, Stefanie, 
reconsider ...

*Announcement* bridge would solve most of the problems high-lighted in 
recent posts. In particular, it would drastically simplify the law-book, 
save rain-forests of local regulations, speed up the game, and remove 
many opportunities for unauthorised information. A simple version is ...

  - You *announce* every call that partner makes e.g. "20-22 flat" or 
"strong artificial" or whatever. No longer do you need to remember which 
bids are alertable or announceable. This saves the time taken by alerts 
and questions. You also avoid the unauthorised information from 
selective  questioning. If opponents prefer, you can "announce", by 
*pointing* to your  convention card (assuming that the meaning is 
explained therein).

  - Opponents have the option to *switch-off* your partnership's 
announcements completely; this further accelerates the game and removes 
more unauthorised information.

  - At the end of the auction, you can still ask what opponents' calls 
mean; or (once again) you can save time with a *Sven Pran* question: 
"What do your partner's calls systemically reveal about his hand?"