[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

David Burn a écrit :
> [when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation
> may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting"
> partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit
> implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken
> when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's
> explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in
> Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the
> partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible
> position.
>
> If there is going to be an appendix to the Laws before the next revision, it
> should obviously include some reference to the matter. 
This would indeed solve the problem.
> But really, the
> question is a simple one and ought not to have occupied everyone here for as
> long as it has. Since partner can't legally use your explanations, they
> aren't legally indications. End of story, and end of dWS.
>   
Sorry, I can't agree with that.

No UI item whatsoever may be used  (that's what the U in UI means).
Are you ready to state that, because partner can't legally use them, 
they're no indications ?
In this case, why bother with UI ?

Regards

   Alain