[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Burn]

[HD]

An answer to an opponent's question is not a communication to Partner.

[HdW]

And if that is the best you can do, I don't want to bother any more. Of
course an answer to an opponent is a communication to partner.

[SP]

No Herman, it is not a communication to partner, no more than if you are
talking with someone at a party and a third person listens to what you say.

You are not "communicating" to this third person, he is just listening in.

And if he breaks into your conversation then it is quite proper (although
often a bit rude) to say to him: "I was not talking to you"!

Similarly when you are answering an opponent's question you are only
communicating with that opponent and your partner is not supposed to "listen
in" on that conversation. Whatever your partner hears is unauthorized
information to him.

[JF]

If Hirsch and Sven are correct

[DALB]

They are. There is no "if" about it.

[JF]

then in response to "please explain," you can say, "I'm not really sure, but
I am going to bid my best suit and see what happens."

[DALB]

Why? Your methods are not "bid your best suit and see what happens". If
asked to explain, your duty is to explain.

[JF]

Don't you see that this is too much communication with partner?

[DALB]

No. Once again, partner is assumed not to listen when you are giving an
explanation to the opponents. You cannot communicate with someone who does
not receive the information you transmit. That is why Law 73B1 is
irrelevant. It does not say "you must not alert or explain"; what it says in
effect is "partner must not see or hear when you do alert or explain". Law
73C tells a player what to do when he has broken Law 73B1.

[JF]

It seems clear to me that how you explain your methods are affected by
whether or not you use screens, precisely because you are simultaneously
communicating with partner when answering questions about your methods.

[DALB]

And it seems clear to Sven, Hirsch, me, and most of the rest of the world
that the explanations you give to your opponents should be exactly the same
with screens as without. You should not concern yourself with partner -
since he is supposed to act as though he had not heard your explanation, you
are free to act as though he cannot hear it. You see, you are not
communicating with partner.

Judging by the tone of Herman's latest missives, no one is going to be able
to convince him of the nature of his error, since it is a fundamental one.
But at least I now understand the wrong thought that lies behind the dWS.

David Burn
London, England