[blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Nigel Guthrie:
> 
>>> [F] When there is evidence that partner has forgotten an
>>> agreement (for example by alerting or not alerting) then
>>> you may argue that it is sometimes excusable to misinform
>>> opponents about your agreement to avoid giving useful
>>> unauthorised information to partner (I hope I'm not
>>> misrepresenting your position, Herman).
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> You are not. Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C,
>> which was check-back. He subsequently bid 2H (my suit)
>> which, by system, shows a minimum hand. I did not alert,
>> because I knew that:
>>
>> a) he had not intended any indication as to strength (in
>> fact he was maximum)
>>
>> b) I was not going to give him UI.
>>
>> Of course I bid as if he was minimum (and he still
>> transformed 2NT to 4H) and told the opponents before the
>> lead. But they were never misinformed as to his holdings -
>> so why should I give him UI and opponents MI at the same
>> time?
> 
> Law 75D2:
> 
> "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation
> may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he
> **indicate in any manner** that a mistake has been made..."
> 
> Law 75C:
> 
> "...a player shall disclose all special information
> conveyed to him through partnership agreement..."
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> There is an inconsistency between Law 75D2 and Law 75C.
> The De Wael School assumes that Law 75D2 prevails in the
> event of any clash between the two; but most of the rest of
> the world's directors assume that Law 75C prevails.
> 
> But Herman is idiosyncratically defining misinformation to
> suit his purposes of justifying his School.  As is made
> clear in the footnote to Law 75, misinformation is giving
> an incorrect explanation of the partnership agreement.  The
> opponents "have no claim to an accurate description" of the
> cards held by Herman's partner.
> 
> Ergo, Herman's actual choice did create MI and was a (what
> Herman thought was a justifiable) infraction of Law 75C.
> 

I know that, and I've never said it was not an infraction. But you 
need to consider damage as well as MI. Since I have correctly 
explained what they might expect in his hand, they cannot be damaged. 
So even if it is an infraction, it is a very mild one.

Consider what I did not tell them: I did not tell them my partner was 
limited to 12 points (in fact he did have 14) How would they have felt 
if I had told them he had 12 points, they had doubled, it would have 
made, and I would say "aha, but I did not MI you since this IS our 
system". I still maintain that I am acting as ethical as I can within 
the laws.

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