[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> (1) The word "unnecessarily" is the first
> begging of the question.  Giving the other
> side a correct explanation of your mutual
> partnership agreement, in accordance with the
> requirements of Law 75C, is very necessary.
> 

And why would that be, Richard? The information that you deem so 
necessary has no relation whatsoever to the had of the guy bidding it. 
As an opponent, I could not care less about the systemic meaning of a 
call, I want to know what the bidder is telling us about his hand.
Take the bidding :

... - 4NT (meant as for the minors, alerted as blackwood) - pass - 5Di.
If I now ask what 5Di means, I want to hear that the man has 0/3 KC, 
not that he is showing longer diamonds.

So you are completely wrong.

Giving the other side a correct explanation of your mutual 
partnership agreement, in accordance with the requirements of Law 75C, 
is _not_ necessary.

> (2) The second begging of the question is
> that the De Wael School advocates, as was
> recently discussed in April's "De Whale"
> thread, the generation of unnecessary UI
> whenever a question is asked about a call
> for which there is not any mutual partnership
> agreement (by lying to the opponents that
> there is an agreement, thus providing very
> unnecessary UI to pard on how you will
> interpret the undiscussed call).
> 

But Richard, are you playing the same way as I am? Isn't "That's 
Ghestem" and "I believe that's Ghestem" exactly the same thing as far 
as UI to partner is concerned?
And please stop mixing threads.

> Herman De Wael:
> 
>>>> - the clever opponent will always ask at
>>>> every turn, hoping to catch out
>>>> misunderstandings and trying to get people
>>>> to exchange UI.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> No, only a stupid opponent does that.  Not
> only does that so-called "clever" player
> place UI restrictions on their partner by
> asking excessive questions, but also the
> badgering of the other side with incessant
> questioning is a clear infraction of the
> courtesy requirements of Law 74A2, so would
> therefore receive a disciplinary penalty if I
> was the Director.
> 

But we are not talking about badgering, or about UI to partner. I am 
simply comparing an opponent who looks at the CC with an opponent who 
asks. The first one reads "1 ace", the second one gets from me the 
reply "1 ace". The second one gets from you the reply "we are having a 
bidding misunderstanding". Against you, it is clever to always ask and 
never look at the CC. Against me, the two are the same.

Do you really want every single one of your partner's bids to be asked 
about? Then do go on with giving "unnecessary UI to partner" every 
time you do have a misunderstanding.

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