blackshoe, on 2025-February-24, 21:21, said:
People seem to have missed this:
I specifically quoted it, and most others referred to the UI aspect mentioned within, so most responders didn't seem to miss it..
axman, on 2025-February-25, 06:55, said:
I had to do a double take. When parsing ‘under’ its meaning is that ‘these words mean X’. Therefore, L20F3 parses as if a footnote analyzing /advising F1&2. Namely, F1&2 includes providing for players to inquire about a particular call keeping in mind there are repercussions.
However, such is advice (which fabricates conflict and thus repugnant to the law.) I see no parsing of F1&2 that grants such permission; and further, F1&2 forbids F3.
I don't see anything in F1&2 that forbids F3? F2 in fact specifically refers to declarer asking about a call, and F1 refers to supplementary questions; if you're interpreting "may request an explanation of the auction" as "the only question you're allowed to ask is please explain the auction as a whole", then there is no such thing as supplementary questions, nor does the bit about what you're entitled to know make sense..