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

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Hirsch Davis wrote:
>   
>> Herman's intepretation assumes that partner is an unlawful and unethical 
>> player who will not follow the constraints of 73C, so that the only option 
>> to prevent an advantage from accruing to his side is to violate disclosure 
>> to the opponents.  Rather than violate Law to handle such a player, I do 
>> suggest not playing with them.
>>
>>     
>
> No Hirsh, I do not assume that partner does not know his L16 
> obligations. But I do assume that if I don't give him any UI, the 
> final outcome will be better than if I do give him UI.
>   
In this life of mine I will never be able to see how it can be better to 
give MI to the opps (who, not being aware that they got MI, are not 
expected to be able to handle that) than giving UI to partner (who, as 
you say, knows his L16 obligations and knows how to handle that).
If partner is ethical, what is the problem??
Why lie about your agreements?  The only answer I can come up with is: 
it is to be expected  that giving MI  will hurt my score less than  
giving UI , which casts  some doubt  on partner`s ability to handle UI, 
and on the abilities of the TD, who should give me the same rotten score 
in any case. My own score can never be of any import in this. I am 
legally obliged to follow the laws, and the devil take my score. 
Anything else is gamesmanship.