Re: [blml] R$BqG(B. : Re: DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Robert Geller wrote:
> Give me a break!!!
> 
> L73B1 reads as follows
> **********************************************
> B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 
> 1. Gratuitous Information 
> Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous 
> remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and 
> explanations given or not given to them. 
> ******************************************
> 
> This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately communicate info
> to partner.   It doesn't in any way say you are relieved of the obligation to answer 
> questions about your agreements like a pre-programmed robot, which is what the
> laws require.
> 
> -Bob

Give me a break too, and don't start to shout so early in the debate. 
I've been having these discussions for 10 years already and there's 
nothing you can find in the lawbook that I haven't already seen.

You are making one huge mistake in your reasoning. UI limits your 
actions in the sense of bidding and play. There is nothing in the laws 
that forbids the use of UI in other areas. For example, you are under 
the obligation to correct MI before the opening lead (if your side is 
declaring). How can you do that unless you take in the UI?

and then :
 > This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately 
communicate info
 > to partner.

Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating something 
(deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous answer was wrong. 
You have just cited the singlemost important article that supports my 
claim!


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