[blml] L20F1

[Roger Eymard]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <herman at hdw.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1


> John Probst wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, 
>> the
>> MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take
>> this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD.  An ethical partnership 
>> is
>> particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its
>> creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem
>> for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can.  John
>>
>>
>
> Both you and Tim believe wrongly.
> L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner
> misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the
> final pass (obviously in order not to give UI).
> Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the
> partner. Again, if the Lawmakers would have felt that MI is more of a
> problem than UI, this law would have been written differently.
>
> I conclude that it was the intention of the lawmakers all along that
> UI should be avoided and MI be left for the TD to deal with, not the
> other way around.
>
> This is a very basic piece of laws philosophy and so we need to read
> the intentions of the lawmakers at a very basic level. I believe that
> I have correctly interpreted the intentions of all lawmakers since the
> early 1930's. At some point in that decade, the firsst lawmakers were
> faced with the problem about who should give the answers: the bidder
> or his partner. When they chose that the bidder should give the
> answer, they decided on what the basic philosophy ought to be. None of
> the subsequent steps have changed that basis, IMO.

Roger Eymard :

After the (presumed) final pass, uncorrected MI does have consequences on 
the play.
If the auction does not restart because of the correction of MI (most of the 
cases), to allow any of (presumed) declarer or (presumed) dummy to explain, 
and therefore to exchange UI about the bidding while correcting MI would 
have no consequence, except that the play would not suffer of any previous 
MI.
In the rare case of a restarting auction, ethical players and TD would take 
the UI into account for the new bids, but again, the play would no more 
suffer of any MI.
IMO, accepting that MI remains in order to avoid UI after the (presumed) 
final pass is making the play a game for the TD, instead of a game for the 
players... :-(