[blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical?

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: olivier.beauvillain
To: Laws
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:11 AM
Subject: [blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical?


Hello,

Someone asks me an old question and i want your advice :

A player holds two touching cards (as king-queen),
he can play anyone of those or another one,
Q: When he "thinks" a while before playing and want to play a "high" card, 
must he play
a) the biggest one (king)
b) the smallest one (the queen)
c) anyone of those two cards,
and if you says he must use a) or b), please explain accordin to something 
like a Law, a Rule, a Way of doing accordin to ..., a Writing of ...

Thanks,
Olivix



I suggest that it is a breach of propriety to intend to deceive an opponent 
if you have UI that could suggest it would be advantageous.



I suggest that it is a breach of propriety to intend to deceive an opponent 
if in doing so you break tempo thereby alerting partner to the possible 
deviation from agreement.



Intent in such situations rarely comes out- that is why it is a matter of 
propriety.



It follows [whether or not intent is present] that it is appropriate to take 
the effort to avoid deviations [significant or substantial] from agreement 
if you fail to maintain good tempo or if partner has created UI that could 
suggest advantage in deviation.



These principles are essentially embodied in L73.



As such, it is a matter of propriety for a partnership to have a mastery of 
its agreements.



Considering your example, once you have broken tempo you need to strive to 
play the systemic card.



regards

roger pewick