[blml] Réf. : Re: DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:

> Herman (together with YT) is arguing that, whenever partner gave  
> wrong explanation, you're caught in the middle between obligations  
> to L20 (you have to explain your system, not partner's holding) and  
> L 73 (you should strive to avoid transmitting information to your  
> partner by any others means than bids and cards ; this includes  
> information that partner is wrong about the system or that you made  
> the wrong bid).
> And we both think it will often be be the lesser of two evils to  
> choose going along with L 73 rather than with L 20.

Law 73A2: Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis,  
mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.
Law 75C:  When explaining the significance of partner's call or play  
in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall  
disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership  
agreement or partnership experience.
Law 40B:  A player may not make a call or play based on a special  
partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be  
expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the  
use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the  
sponsoring organisation.

Preface to (American edition) or Scope and Interpretation of (English  
edition) the laws: When a player "should" do something ("a claim  
should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do  
it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but  
which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these  
Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take  
any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will  
be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before  
making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates  
that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very  
strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than  
"shall not", just short of "must not".

"Shall" is a stronger injunction than "should", and "may not" is at  
least as strong an injunction as "shall".

Seems to me pretty clear that explaining your agreements takes  
precedence over avoiding giving UI.

Law 20 isn't really relevant, as it speaks to the timing and  
mechanics of explaining, rather than the requirements.