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

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
> This is the penultimate sentence of a long paragraph entitled "use of 
> unauthorized information". It deals with all sorts of UI, listed are 8 
> pieces, not one of which specifically relevant to our discussion.
> The sentence immediately above the cited sentence reads :
> "It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership
> has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player’s 
> actions when following the path to a judgement."
>
> I maintain that this paragraph is in no way specifically related to 
> the discussion we are having. 

It doesn`t have to. It says what it says, it does not have to 
"specifically relate" to something.

> Which does not mean the sentence is 
> invalid, of course.
> But it does shed a new light on the use of the words "without design" 
> in the phrase. What are intended are cases such as pauses for 
> thinking, relevant questions being asked, a whole range of real 
> reasons why one should, accidentally, give UI. In that context is must 
> be clear that what is intended is a reinforcement of what is written 
> in L73B1: you are not allowed to communicate UI to partner, unless 
> that is done _without design_.
>   

Herman, has it ever dawned on you that doing something to follow a 
specific law may be _without design_ on the part of the player? If a 
certain law tells me to do this and that, and furthermore the WBFLC tell 
me that giving UI in that case is no infraction, what more do you need? 
Two members of the WBFLC have said on this list that this is so. If you 
need a voice out of burning bush I cannot help you.

> I therefore do not accept that this sentence can be used as proof that 
> the actions of the MS become legal in the sense of not breaking L73B1.
>   

Proof does not come into it. The legisative powers of my country do not 
have to prove to me that what they do is right. They may have to prove 
it in court if someone takes it to Bundesverfassungsgericht (sorry, no 
translation. The court for laws and such). Since the WBF has no such 
court the laws and what the WBFLC says about them is final until the law 
is changed or the WBFLC changes its mind. What I, you, my neighbour and 
Mrs. Guggenheim accept or not does not matter at all.

> To add to which, nothing is said about L75D2. The actions of the MS 
> are still in clear breach of L75D2.
>   

If I explain my system I do not "indicate" that a misunderstanding or 
error has occured. If my opps are intelligent enough to figure out what 
has happened, more power to them.

> Indeed, design, as in intent, reason, willing. Surely you do not call 
> "diamond preference" as unintentional giving of UI? (when the player 
> fully well realizes that the partner intended 5Di as meaning 1 ace).
>   

No, I call it a correct explanation of my agreement. Intention does not 
come into it, the law forces me to do so. 75C. No design, intent, 
whatever on my part. And the CoP tells anyone who cares to read it that 
there is no infraction on my part. There may well be an infraction by my 
partner later, but that is in the future, and for the TD to decide.