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

[ton]

 I should have known, this is not interesting at all and Herman is wrong
saying that the LC has not answered this question. 
We did not give his answer and that for sure is unforgivable. 

Of course the only obligation a player has is to explain the partnership
agreements. 


ton





-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Robert Geller
Sent: maandag 4 juni 2007 17:17
To: Herman De Wael
Cc: blml
Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

The answer seems very simple.  He should give the correct answer
according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner.   If his
partner
uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment.  What's the
problem?

-Bob

Herman De Wael さんは書きました:
>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?
>
>
>--
>Herman DE WAEL
>Antwerpen Belgium
>http://www.hdw.be
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml