Re: How many questions about an opening bid before it's UI?

On Apr 24, 10:47 am, BBO expert <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > Am I not entitled to understand your agreements in terms of negative
> > inferences as well as positive ones?
>
> I thought the ACBL specifically said _not_, but I confess I can't find
> anything on their site.

I think there's something in the Alert Procedures, or something like
that, to the effect that negative inferences don't (necessarily) make
an unalertable call alertable.  I think it's there, although I haven't
checked.  But perhaps that's what you were thinking of.

But you do have a right to be told about negative inferences as part
of "full disclosure".  (*What* you have to ask to be told that
information, I'm not sure.)  And, as has been pointed out, questions
about other calls that could have been made, but weren't, do need to
be answered---the Laws say so explicitly.

This last hasn't always been part of the rules, by the way; it was
added in 1997.  Long ago, in the mid-1980's, I think, I got ruled
against in part because I had asked a question about what 2NT would
have been in response to their weak two.  They answered the question
just fine, but after I passed and partner then bid, they claimed that
partner's bid was based on UI.  The director ruled in our favor but
the opponents appealed, and the committee did adjust, partly because
they believed I had hesitated (there was a difference of opinion on
that), and partly because of my question which was illegal at the
time.  Later, I had a talk with Roger Putnam (a respected director) at
the time, and he told me that yes, that was the way the rules were,
but he thought the rule should be changed.  And eventually it was.

                                     -- Adam