[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills begs to differ:
> 
>>> No ruling?  A De Wael School explanation which
>>> conforms to partner's hand could still be the
>>> infraction of misexplanation, if the explainer
>>> has illegally customised their explanation to
>>> conform with partner's misbid, rather than to
>>> describe mutual partnership agreement.
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> If the explanation conforms to the hand, very
>> seldom there will be a ruling. In the unlikely
>> case of the TD being called and misinformation
>> and misbid being both present (both partners
>> simultaneously and in the same manner
>> forgetting the system on their CC, there will
>> be MI, no damage.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> No damage?  Not necessarily so.
> 

Again, Richard, you counter my arguments with freak examples.

I give you a reason why my methods are better, and that reason 
includes a phrase such as "in general, there will be no damage".

"In general" already means that this is true only 99% (or even just 
80%) of the time.

And you think that citing one example from 1980 strengthens your 
argument? Rather, it strengthens mine. In 50 years of WC reporting, 
you find one example where it would have been better to follow your 
advice. I think that means that my advice is more effective, don't 
you? No, of course you don't, but then you're stubborn. Well, so am I.

> In a 1980s Bridge World tournament report about

I won't comment on the case that you don't even cite in full, apart 
from saying that I don't like the ruling one bit. If this is the best 
you can do to discredit the DeWael school, then I'm even more 
convinced that I am acting in a good manner.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be