[blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
> There is nothing I do not understand in that.
> Allow me to add emphasis:
>
> "A player who, _without design_, makes unauthorized information 
> available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or 
> propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the 
> laws."
>
> I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case gives 
> UI _without design_. 

Herman, how can an act that is called for by a law be deliberate? If I 
stop at a red traffic light and a firetruck comes up from behind with 
horns blaring, then I do not commit an infraction of the (German) 
traffic rules if I cross the stop line under red light to get out of the 
way (provided there is no other option and I do so without endangering 
someone), the specific laws tell me so. Have I crossed _with design_? 
Surely not. I "broke a law" in order to follow another one.
So if the lawgivers tell me that I do not commit an infraction if I give 
UI _under specific circumstances_ , and I now fulfill my obligation by 
describing my agreements, how have I given UI (if indeed I did so) _with 
design_ ?

> Rather, he deliberately 

Come on! Following a law is not "deliberate", even if it is a law you 
would prefer to break.

> breaks L75D2 with as only 
> excuse a wish 

An obligation, Herman, an obligation. Wishes do not come into it. I do 
not have to like it, neither have you, but there it is.

> to give systemic correct information, information which 
> is, BTW, totally useless, 

I have always found use for knowledge about opp`s system, even if one of 
them doesn`t follow it at the moment, because it tells me why the guy 
made his bid in the first place. I will find out later that his partner 
gave him no answer, but the fact that he showed something or asked for 
something is of interest to me. This I will not find out until later if 
he now pretends to have done something else, and later may well be too late.

> and wrong!
>   

No, it is correct. It does not correspond to the actual hand, true, but 
that does not make the information about the system wrong.

> I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1.
>
> Pleaase find other arguments, this one won't work.
>
>   
The trouble with arguments is that the guy you try to argue with must be 
willing to accept some of your arguments, else it does indeed not work.
Grattan has quoted WBFLC, and there can be no doubt that that said body 
considers UI given by a correct descrition of agreements to be no 
infraction, only use of such UI. If that were not so that statement 
would make no sense whatsoever, it then being impossible to give UI 
_without design_ . This is the one pillar on which everything else 
rests. It is official interpretation of official law. Now along comes 
Herman and tells us that it _is_ an infraction, that it _is_ with 
design, deliberate, and wrong. How can _any_ argument work on that 
basis? Any argument you are willing to accept seems to have to be based 
on your interpretation. It so happens that the WBFLC and lots of BLMLers 
(including me, FWIIW) do not agree with your interpretation. You are in 
no way obliged to agree with all the BLMLers, as our word on this is no 
better than yours, but the WBFLC is quite another matter, and nothing 
you think or say can change that any more than I could. It is the law 
until it is changed, and you can choose to believe or interpret or 
whatnot, it does not change a damn thing for the moment. You are free to 
disagree, of course, anyone is, but someone has to set up the rules. If 
the rules are bad they should get changed, but they remain the rules 
nonetheless.
I told you before, I tell you again: I think that you jeopardize your 
chances of being heard with what you have to say (which has some merit, 
even if I do not agree with a lot of it) by being somewhat stubborn 
about this. You don`t have to listen to me, of course, but the laws need 
every thinker about the game to contribute, be it as innovator or as a 
stone on which they will be sharpened.