[blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Robert Geller]

The inadvertent creation of UI in the course of complying with the Laws
(such as answering in correctly answering questions about one's agreements)
is neither a "crime" nor an irregularity.   The inadvertent creation of UI through
uncontrollable human reactions (variations in tempo, grimaces, gestures,
etc.) is an irregularity (to be avoided as much as possible) but not a "crime."
But deliberately providing UI to partner though any means of communication
other than those authorized by law is a grave "crime" indeed.

-Bob   

Steve Willner さんは書きました:
>> From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
>> It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been
>> discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI
>> is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into
>> taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime.
>
>Many legal problems would vanish.  However, this would not be a game I'd 
>wish to play.  The idea of bridge, as I understand it, is to pick the 
>calls and plays that will work best, not the ones that are "least 
>suggested" by UI.
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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