Re: inn err Ni manor

Richard Hills wrote:
> Herman De Wael, attempt at a rhetorical question:
>
>> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes
>> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case?
>
> New 2017 Law 20G2:
>
> "A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an
> incorrect response from an opponent."

Good on the WBF!
This could solve the problem of the deliberate question.
Except that, when such a question is asked nevertheless, what is the 
responder to do? Answer "you are not allowed to ask that question?" - 
which tells the asker everything he needs to know. And what if he lies 
nevertheless?
But it would not solve the probem for an innocently asked follow-up.

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 11 Sep 2017, at 7:58 PM, Herman De Wael <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> brian wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I
>>>> describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done
>>>> nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently?
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one,
>>> Robert.
>>>
>>> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and
>>> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid,
>>> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of
>>> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a
>>> forcing response.
>>>
>>> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard
>>> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then
>>> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D.
>>>
>>> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his
>>> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course...
>>>
>>
>> There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian.
>> Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner.
>> Making a bid does not.
>> The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI
>> regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there
>> was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so
>> eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much
>> more complicated issue?
>>
>> Let me give you a counter-counter example.
>>
>> South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid
>> which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This
>> wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a
>> call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK?
>> But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives
>> some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by
>> explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes
>> the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received.
>> Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge?
>> The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because:
>> a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say
>> anything, so the illegal UI never occurs;
>> b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because
>> follow-up questions are very rare.
>> But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes
>> mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case?
>> I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response
>> ought to be admissible, and even encouraged.
>> Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible,
>> as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from
>> giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards!
>>
>> Herman.
>>
>>>
>>> Brian.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml