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

[Herman De Wael]

Sven Pran wrote:
>> 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.
> 

No Sven, you are victim of a serious 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, 

no of course not

> 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. 
> 

no, of course not

> This understanding is obviously ridiculous.
> 

no, of course it is not. And don't use obvious when discussing 
something that the other is totally not agreeing to.

> 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.
> 

Indeed, it prohibits using actions as a means of communication.

So the player is not allowed to say "partner, you forgot to alert, 
this was Ghestem". And the player is also not allowed to use an alert 
or an answer to communicate that same message to partner.

So in fact, yes, this rule does prohibit giving UI.
Or rather, it prohibits using certain actions (alerting, answering) as 
a method of transmitting interesting information to partner.

I think that should be obvious.

It is probably because you want to claim that the MS actions are legal 
that you believe that this law does not apply. But it does, and the MS 
actions are illegal. Which does not mean they should not be done, no - 
I quite realize that both the MS and the dWS actions are illegal, and 
that a player is forced to break one law or another, and that he must 
be allowed to get away with a rectification for his irregularity 
without further penalty. But that goes for both actions.

> So the alleged conflict is no conflict at all. 

yes it is.

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.
> 

Sorry, but this is your interpretation, not mine.
I believe the prime duty is to avoid giving UI to partner.
And just stating that it is not so is not an argument.

I am quite willing to debate the strength of both obligations, but not 
if you continue to argue that the MS player does nothing wrong.

I hope that you take both my last posts together. In both, I have 
taken apart your argument that there is no law "thou shalt not give 
UI". Either one should suffice, but both together should really 
convince the world (if not Sven) that there is such a law.

> Sven  
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html