[blml] De Whale

[Eric Landau]

At 02:43 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote:

>Eric Landau wrote:
>
> > One wonders what the De Wael school would make of the "two-way 
> double",
> > which, by explicit agreement, can be made with either a pure takeout
> > double or a pure penalty double; partner is required to "guess" which
> > it is based purely on the contents of his own hand.  Proponents of 
> this
> > particular convention claim that he will get it right "almost every
> > time".  ISTM that because such an agreement could not be 
> "disclosed" in
> > a manner consistent with the requirements of the DWs without requiring
> > the doubler's partner to base his disclosure solely on the contents of
> > his hand (no other disambiguating criterion exists), a 
> DWs-following TD
> > would have either to require the doubler's partner to do precisely 
> that
> > or to rule that the use of this particular convention creates MI every
> > time regardless of what is actually held or explained.
>
>I see no problem with any scenario here. If both players know what
>they are doing, and they explain it correctly, what's the problem.
>
>The only problem is with people who give penalty doubles, partner
>figuring out that it is a penalty double, and passing it, then
>refusing to say what it is. Those people do not reveal who is taking
>the decision, while they both know who it is.
>
>If the partner of a two-way doubler instead explains the double as the
>way he figured it out, he is at least informing the opponents of the
>correct player who took the decision.

Of course, the entire rationale for this (perfectly legal) convention 
is to keep the knowledge of which player holds the long trumps 
unrevealed if the partnership passes out the double.  In a De Wael 
school world this convention would not exist.

>I find giving the opponents correct information about holdings far
>more important than giving them correct theoretical systemic
>information. They have no use for the second, only for the first.

Which is, even if correct, no excuse for ignoring the laws, which 
clearly mandate that they be given the second.  It's no coincidence 
that the ACBL has mounted a decade-long campaign (familiar to readers 
of "Ruling the Game" in the Bridge Bulletin) to teach their players 
*not* to respond to inquiries by (illegally) offering their opinions as 
to the meaning of partner's calls in the absense of any systemic 
(explicit or implicit) agreement.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607