Сегодня в судейской конференции BLML стала обсуждать наша старая тема.

Привожу здесь часть дискуссии, что бы, как мне кажется, подтвердить правильность ранее принятго нам решения.

There's a question that has come up on the OKBridge discussion
list, and I'd like to hear any opinions from BLML members. Those
of you who are familiar with OKBridge, please bear with me for a
paragraph, I might need to explain a couple of things for those
who don't play there.

On OKBridge, the (overwhelmingly) majority practice is to use
self-alerts, i.e. the bidder alerts and explains his own bid.
This can cause a bit of a ruction if you psych, and your
opponents don't know that you explain the agreement not your
hand, but otherwise, the scheme seems to work well, it certainly
improves the speed of the game. You type in the explanation as
you make the bid, this explanation is sent as a private message
to both opps, i.e. your partner is none the wiser. It's also the
case on OKBridge that your agreements with a pickup partner are
limited to a couple of sentences, common is "SAYC, pd?" "OK".
You're expected to start play quickly, and refine any more
detailed agreements as and when you get the chance.

Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further
explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his
post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for
an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a
substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair,
that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're
having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think
otherwise.

Opinions, please?

Thanks,

Brian.

++++++++++=

Recommendations from my 1998 publication, Alerts and Disclosure in Online
Bridge (abstract published in OKbridge Spectator, full article available at
http://home.cshore.com/bills/alerts.html):

V. Dual explanations - When further information is requested following an
alertable or non-alertable call, the player who is responsible for alerting
and providing explanations should provide a timely and complete explanation
of partnership agreements (7). Should a question be directed to both
members of a partnership, the partner of the alerter has the option, but
not the obligation, of also providing information. In principle, the
provision of dual explanations should provide a measure of indemnity
against liability for damage due to mis-explanation, much as the
corrections under Law 75D do. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the
provision of this information during the auction provides contemporaneous
knowledge of a misunderstanding which is not provided under the laws, and
that a pair should not be compelled to provide dual explanations of a
single call (8).


7. The same person who answers questions after alerts should also answer
after non-alerts, otherwise the asking of a question definitively creates a
UI problem. [Note added 25 May, 2002: a complete discussion of this issue
is contained in another section not quoted in this post.] Distinctions
between alertable and non-alertable calls arise from the implementation by
the sponsoring organization of methods to facilitate disclosure, rather
than from fundamental differences in the legal status of alertable vs.
non-alertable calls.


8. Minutes of the WBF Laws Committee (Lille, 1998) appear to affirm that
questions may not be directed to both partners for the purpose of
confirming an explanation or determining whether there is a disagreement.


Cheers,

Bill Segraves
Guilford, CT