[blml] L20F1

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the 
                               joys of sense,
 Lie in three words, health, peace, 
                          and competence."
                       -~ Alexander Pope. 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current  belief is that
neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's 
explanation that there is a misunderstanding 
between them. Each should continue bidding and 
explaining his partner's calls on the basis of his own 
understanding (on which he has based his earlier 
calls). Only when the bidding is unmistakably 
unhinged can he learn from that of the problem. 
But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an 
instruction or guidance to players that they should 
explain according to system correctly, but continue 
to call on the basis of their own understanding. I was 
wondering how loosely worded that might be on the 
subject of gaining awareness. It worried me that it 
might be in the 1992 Commentary, but what it says 
there is "He must carefully avoid making use of that 
unauthorized information and must not base any 
action upon it. He can act upon knowledge which 
he obtains unmistakably from the subsequent bidding 
or play."  So it appears my mind has remained 
unreasonably consistent upon the subject.  Damage 
to opponents through an incorrect explanation is to 
be redressed by score adjustment.
   Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. 
I do not even know at this juncture whether they 
will (or can) resolve the question. They are still in 
malleable condition.  
                           ~ Grattan ~   +=+
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Probst" <john at asimere.com>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1


> 
> >
> You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? 
> I find it one of the most difficult points of Law 
> to interpret. "Thou SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou 
> SHALST NOT correct MI" (in certain circumsatnces) 
> and "Thou MAYST create UI"  (but partner has to be 
> ultra careful). The words of the Law I understand, 
> but what was the intention of the LawMaker - and 
> "How do we play Bridge?" ? 
> cheers John
> >