[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[David Burn]

>David: L75D2, L73B1

Herman, you keep quoting these Laws, but they are irrelevant. Law 75D2
refers to a situation in which a player's partner has given a mistaken
explanation of the partnership methods. But if you don't know whether your
partner has given a mistaken explanation of the partnership methods, Law
75D2 does not apply to you.

To clarify with reference to the example I gave:

West     North    East     South
2D       2NT (1)  Pass     3D (2)

(1) Alerted by South and (though this did not happen at the table) explained
as minors.  North, who believes that the partnership methods are that 2NT is
natural, may now "not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made".
According to the dWS, this means that...
(2) ...North should not alert 3D, because he may have to explain this as, or
South may from the alert alone infer that North thinks it is, a transfer to
hearts. This would be "an indication that a mistake has been made", contrary
to L75D2. Of course, North should still bid 3H, or break the transfer if his
hand warrants it - the dWS and I are in full agreement on this point.

But for as long as North believes that the partnership methods are than 2NT
is natural, he must alert any of South's bids that are alertable in that
context. Since North is not allowed to infer anything from South's alert of
2NT, he must alert 3H, which is what he would do if he were deaf, or playing
behind a screen.

The Laws presume that South does not hear North's alerts and explanations,
and vice versa. This is of course a legal fiction, but it is a useful one,
and for the sake of simplicity we may extend it so that questions asked of
North and answers given by North do not legally constitute any indication to
South. In that way, no one need break any Laws, and the dWS can safely be
towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire.

David Burn
London, England