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

[Jeff Ford]

On 6/15/07, Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Jeff Ford wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Where did Herman's opponents get this MI that "they already have"?

With his partner's incorrect explanation of his earlier bid.  In the
canonical 4NT Blackwood or minors example, the MI is effectively that
they're in a Blackwood sequence.  Saying "one ace" is the same MI,
that they're in a Blackwood sequence.

Jeff


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