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

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> [HdW]
> 
> Let's read L73B1 then again: (restructuring and numbering mine)
> 
> Partners shall not communicate
> (1) through the manner is which calls or plays are made
> (2) through extraneous remarks or gestures
> (3) through questions asked or not asked
> (4) or through alerts and explanations given or not given (to them?)
> [that last part seems a little strange but it's probably too late to 
> change the 2007 laws now - is that still in there?]
> 
> While (1) and (2) could be considered communications to partner, (3) and
> (4)
> clearly refer to communications to opponents.
> 
> It seems therefore abundantly clear that L73B1 includes among the things
> it
> forbids, the passing of information to partner by explaining things to
> opponents.
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> Exactly right, Herman. Law 73B1 does indeed forbid the passing of
> information to partner by explaining things to opponents. That is why, in
> the remainder of Law 73 and elsewhere, it is abundantly clear that
> partner
> (for legal purposes) does not receive the information contained in an
> explanation to opponents, and one gives explanations on that basis.
> 
> Of course, in reality partner is sitting at the table and can hear you
> speak. But as Sven says, if I am sitting at the next table to you in a
> restaurant and can hear what you order from the waiter, you are
> nevertheless
> not communicating to me, but to the waiter. 


David - in Poland we are in the middle of the campaign before the
elections so I'm hearing convoluted statements like that every day
but you were the last person I expected to use that kind of
"That depends on your definition of the word 'is'." reasoning.

If alerting a bid partner doesn't expect you to alert is not
"communicating through alerts" than what is? 

If are giving your opponents an explanation that you know
is going to wake up partner that you are breaking L73B1.

If 

a) your partner is unaware of the system mishap
b) you say something at the table - something you can be 100%
certain he will hear (this is why an analogy with the waiter is false)
c) your partner becomes aware that their you're having
a bidding misunderstanding

then you have just communicated to partner that the wheels
have come off. How can you not call that communication - 
"a process by which information is exchanged between individuals"
according to the English dictionary?

If it continues in the same vein that I'll start arguing
that by following de Wael's school I'm not breaking L40C at all.
by redefining the notion of "the full meaning of a call or play".



-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rusz pupe na wybory!
Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1bfc