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

[David Burn]

[HdW]

Well, it is only you that says that A is required to say something.

[DALB]

No, it isn't. The Laws require that our partnership understandings be
disclosed to the opponents. The regulations (usually) require that this is
done by alerts, questions, and explanations.

[HdW] 

I say something else. So in fact, I follow your [1]. You see, you try to see
it through logically and you can get there.

[DALB]

Get where? Neither in your scenario (North says "Blackwood", which means
that South will say "one ace" and not "minor-suit preference") nor in mine
(North says "Blackwood, but South will still say "minor-suit preference") is
there any suggestion that South says nothing at all.

[HdW]

You do willingly break one law

[DALB]

No, I don't. I assume that partner will not receive the information that I
transmit to my opponents - or, what is the same thing, I assume that no one
will be able to conclude from his behaviour that he has received it, since
he will behave as if he hasn't. That is, I have not communicated anything to
partner, so that I have not broken any laws at all.

The fact that you need to concoct the argument "alerting to tell partner
what he may already know is UI, but then a miracle occurs and it becomes AI"
should in itself suggest to you that you are being absurd. Law 73 does not
make a distinction between what partner may know and what he may not know,
so that if you consider any explanation to an opponent to be a communication
to partner per Law 73, you are forced to consider all explanations to an
opponent to be communications to partner per Law 73, and therefore illegal.
Since it is not illegal - indeed, it is mandatory - to give explanations to
the opponents, your argument is not merely wrong in the real world, but
wrong in all possible worlds.

[HdW]

And yet L73B1 does condemn the sender of the information.

[DALB]

No, it doesn't. A transmission is not a communication - it becomes a
communication only if it is received, and it matters that it has been
received only if it is acted upon.

[HdW]

And L75D2 explicitly states that you should not communicate it either.

No, it doesn't. If it did, your reliance on it would be as ill-founded as
your reliance on Law 73B1. Fortunately for you, Law 75D2 states that a
player who is aware that his partner has given a misexplanation may not
indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.

Why is this so? Because, of course, such an indication is unauthorised
information to partner - it would not matter in the least if only the
opponents became aware that a mistake had been made. But just as an
explanation is not a "communication" under Law 73B1, it is not an
"indication" under Law 75D2 either, because partner is supposed to be
unaware of it. Again, following the de Wael interpretation to its logical
conclusion, we reach this absurdity:

North     South
1C        1H
1S        2D (1)
2NT       Pass

(1) Alerted by North and explained as fourth suit forcing to game.

South, who knows that the partnership methods are that fourth suit is not
forcing to game and that North's 2NT shows a minimum, passes. According to
the dWS he is not allowed to do this, because it is an indication that a
mistake has been made. Do you consider that South is in fact acting
illegally?

[HdW]

Consider that if you don't say "that was not Blackwood", he may fall on his
feet. Whereas if you do say it, he is bound by L16 and will only fall on his
feet if he considers it ethical. And then you will only keep that score if
the Director also agrees that it is ethical. So the result of not giving the
UI is not the same as that of giving it! 

[DALB]

So what? Perhaps next time, partner will learn the system.

David Burn
London, England