[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> 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.
> 

I agree. But those pieces of MI are a consequence of the MI that 
partner has already provided. L75D2 forbids me to correct that MI. Do 
you think the lawmakers have written L75D2 only to prevent UI? They 
have also prevented MI from being corrected. What you are doing is not 
only give "correct" information about 5Di, but also about 4NT. You 
were not allowed to give that information if they had not asked. Now 
you are using opponent's question to get out from under your L75D2 
obligations. I don't think that is right.

But anyway. You are accusing me of chosing between UI and MI, and 
chosing that which is better for me. I do no such thing. I always give 
the MI. By claiming that there are cases where the MI might actually 
be worse for me, you are trying to get to a system where you might 
want to chose. I don't think you should be allowed to chose. Th WBF 
have chosen for us, by writing L75D2. I'd wish they'd have the good 
sense to extend the application of the same principle.

Because face it: without L75D2 a player might be under a similar 
dilemma: if partner misexplains, might I not do better by correcting? 
After all, the same arguments apply as those bandied around here.
And that situation is even more warped in favour of correcting: after 
all, the MI than partner has given is real MI, he has misdescribed my 
hand. By explaining his bid the way he intended it, I am merely giving 
technical MI, which can hardly do any harm.

So if the WBF have once made the choice, why not make it a second time 
in the same direction?
Do you really think  a law that goes "you are not allowed to correct 
(in any manner) except when they ask a follow-up question" would work?
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be