[blml] De Whale

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> At 02:43 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.  

No, no, no, no!

Your use of the word "mandate" is a bit troublesome.

The laws tell us that the opponents are entitled to the system, and 
nothing more. The laws do not tell us that it is forbidden to tell 
them more.
Telling them more that they are entitled to is not ignoring the laws!

Since it is never easy to know beforehand what the director will rule 
the system is going to be, telling them what you know (or think to 
know) of your partner's hand can never be wrong.
Even if it turns out that you get the system wrong but have given a 
correct description of the hand, they can hardly be damaged, can they? 
(yes I know they can still be damaged, but only from a rebound, not 
firsthand).

> 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.
> 

And I still wonder why the ACBL have thought up that crazy idea?

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be