[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Geller]

Herman,
Can't you please stop your line of argumentation and do something more
constructive.

The passing of UI is a serious offense if it was done intentionally.

OTH, if the passing of UI  is incidental to complying with a law there is
no offense whatsoever but par's use of the UI is subject to score
adjustment.

You appear to sincerely believe that there are serious contradictions between the
various laws (it is not obvious to me that this is the case, although IMO the
wording could usefully be tweaked a bit).

Instead of just tediously bringing up the same argument over and over again,
why don't you instead propose how you would rewrite the laws in question.

-Bob

Herman De Wael さんは書きました:
>Robert Geller wrote:
>> Herman De Wael さんは書きました:
>>> Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me 
>>> enumerate:
>> 
>> I respectfully disagree.  
>> 
>> L75C says I'm obligated to disclose partnership agreements and partnership
>> experience.  According to Richard's conditions we've played old-fashioned
>> blackwood for many years with no errors.  Thus as our agreement is 
>> simple Blackwood and we have never before had an error. L75 requires
>> me to reply "3 aces."   
>> 
>
>And L73 tells me I should not communicate with my partner in any 
>manner other than calls and plays. L73 requires me to reply "2 KC and 
>the QT" (if that is what I gather partner was showing).
>
>> I recognize this may not feel right, but c'est la vie.  I wish Hermann would
>> suggest how he proposes L75 should be revised to make it (in his opinion)
>> more equitable, rather than merely advocating that we arbitrarily violate the
>> law when it "feels right" to do so.
>> 
>
>It is my opinion that L75D2 clears up this dilemma. But that is my 
>opinion only, I realize that.
>
>>> Again, which laws do you want us to not break?
>> Creating UI only is subject to score
>> adjustment if the UI creates a situation where pard could have been adjudged
>> to have based a subsequent call on the UI.  So I don't see any problem at all
>> in the Blackwood case.
>> 
>
>Again, I can retaliate with almost the same sentence:
>
>Creating MI only is subject to score adjustment if the MI creates a 
>situation where the opponents are considered damaged. I don't see any 
>problem either.
>
>Except that the two are NOT symmetric.
>Because contrary to the MI laws, the UI laws impose on partner a 
>particular obligation, namely NOT to do what he might have done absent 
>the UI.
>If the MI causes the opponents to chose the wrong action 40% of the 
>time, then they will get an AS based on 60%/40% of both possible results.
>But if the UI causes partner to chose right in an otherwise 60/40 
>chance, we will not get an AS based on 60/40, but we will get him 
>chosing wrong all the time!
>That is one other reason why I believe the lawmakers intend the giving 
>of UI to be a more severe infraction than the giving of MI.
>It is also why I chose to give MI if giving the correct Info causes me 
>to give UI to my partner.
>
>> -Bob 
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Herman DE WAEL
>Antwerpen Belgium
>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com