[blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws

[Jeff Ford]

On 6/15/07, raija <mustikka at charter.net> wrote:
> > Let me try one more time and let us not bring into this any 4NT or 5D bids
> > or any other examples that may or may not be relevant.  It is a simple
> > matter that does not need examples.
> >
> > Case A.
> > 1. Opponent asks a "majority view" player about his partner's bid.
> > 2. The "majority view" player answers and tells the truth about the agreed
> > meaning of the bid.

I think this talk of "lying" is quite overblown.  It's just as
accurate to phrase point 2 as "The 'majority view' player answers and
lies about what his partner has communicated with his bid."

> > Case B.
> > 1. Opponent asks Herman about his partner's bid.
> > 2. Herman answers and tells a lie about the agreed meaning of the bid.

Here "Herman answers and tells the truth about what his partner shows
with his bid."

As a random player, my opinion on the dWS in general is of little
importance, but I don't think calling its explanations "lying" is of
any value in arguing against it.  Whether the question is correctly
answered according to what the agreement is (giving new UI), or what
the player actually shows (possibly giving MI, but only that MI the
opponents already have) should be stated more clearly in the next
Laws.  At the moment calling either position "lying" isn't right.

Jeff


-- 
Jeff Ford     http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jeffford/