[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> ton wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it
>> and might have an opinion.
>>
>> ton
>>
>
> The question is the standard one from the discussion termed
> "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years:
>
> A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now
> asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options:
> - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that
> partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner;
> - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not
> revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI.
>
> Which of the two should he do?
>


I am a simple soul:   Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell the 
truth. If this creates UI, so be it. It is not against the Law to create UI 
although *using UI* is.  Competent TD will rule appropriately if there is UI 
created and the UI is used, and there is damage.

It is against the law to give MI.  It happens sometimes, it may cause 
damage, it might become complicated.  Whatever. A competent TD will rule 
appropriately on the case.

Giving MI intentionally, ie. deliberately and knowingly explaining as an 
agreement something that never was an agreement, or covering up for partner 
who apparently has forgotten system/misbid, is definitely against the Law. 
In common terms this is called lying and the TD should deal with it 
severely, if it comes to light that the MI was given on purpose and the 
explainer knew the actual agreement all along.