[blml] Réf. : Re: The sixth sick sheik' s sixth sheep is sick[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner
> >Alain Gottcheiner wrote among other things:
> >
> >Whenever both possible reactions (here, knowingly creating MI or
> >knowingly creating UI) are badly wrong according to the book,
> >
> >My comment is plainly:
> >
> >I fail to see any conflict. Maybe you can enlighten me on where in the
> >laws it is stated that "knowingly creating UI" is an offence?
> 
> Sure. 73B1. Last item specifically mentions explanations.

Yes, exactly the law I anticipated, just confirming that you too are a
victim of this misunderstanding.

Quote:
Law 73B1. Gratuitous Information
Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays
are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or
not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not
given to them.
End quote.

You (and many other players) apparently understand this law to prohibit all
asking (or not asking) questions of opponents, all alerts (or missing
alerts) and all explanations given (or not given) because of the fact that
any such action (or lack of action!) will necessarily create information
that is unauthorized to your partner. 

This understanding is obviously ridiculous.

Law 73B1 does not in any way prohibit the creation as such of unauthorized
information; it prohibits using actions like the ones specified as a means
of communication with partner. Such communication is established if and when
partner makes any use of the extraneous information, not when it is created.

So the alleged conflict is no conflict at all. Your prime duty is to give a
true, complete and correct explanation of your partnership's agreements, and
your partner's duty is to avoid using any information he receives from your
explanation for his subsequent choice of actions.

Sven