[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC

[Eric Landau]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors.
> Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how
> many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"?
> OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond
> preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in
> another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they
> will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that
> information. So you will also say "1 ace".
> What have you now said, all in all
> 1-"He has 1 ace" (true)
> 2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true)
> 3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true)

What about 4-"my hand is consistent with asking for minors, not with  
asking for aces" (true)?

And 5-"my next call will be consistent with 5D having shown a diamond  
preference, not with 5D having shown one ace" (also true, if you act  
ethically).

By replying "one ace", you are deliberately and illegally preventing  
them from drawing those conclusions.  Your partner forgot the system,  
and while you are not required to reveal this explicitly, you are not  
permitted to go out of your way to mislead your opponents in an  
attempt to keep them from any possibility of uncovering (or even  
guessing) the situation for themselves.

Herman's argument is that lying about the systemic meaning of a call,  
when you know it is not the meaning partner intended in any case, is  
a significantly less egregious offense than passing UI, and he may be  
right about that.  But he overlooks that by following his  
prescription in cases like this, he is also effectively volunteering  
false and misleading information not just about his system, but about  
*his own hand*, which is about as egregious an offense as any in the  
book.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net