[blml] When both players are dWSists

[Steve Willner]

[As I wrote some time ago, my BLML postings will be irregular.  Sorry 
not to have responded to these earlier.]

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> [someone could] use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, 
...
>  "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined,  
> would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with [an
 > accurate explanation at the proper time].  I'm
> cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some  
> who would never cheat proactively.

All agree that "school" doesn't matter to outright cheats; the question 
here is a player who might be tempted if he thought he could get away 
with it.  In the MS, all such a player has to do is convince himself 
that "Yes, of course it's partner's explanation that is correct."  That 
seems to me quite a lot easier to do, and a lot harder to penalize, than 
"forgetting to correct."

[MI may go unnoticed, Eric again:]
>  You ask for a minor suit preference at the five- 
> level, partner describes your call as "Blackwood", he bids 5D, you  
> describe his call as "one ace", you make a call consistent with his  
> having one ace, you play the hand out, and you expect an opponent to  
> work out after the fact that *your* hand was systemically suited for  
> a systemic minor-suit-preference-ask but not for Blackwood?

MI is a lot easier to recognize than "use of UI."  That's one of the 
strengths of the dWS.  Of course if the players are cheats, they will 
get away with it for awhile in either school.

[The "general case" of the dWS]
> 2H-2NT-P-?
> 
> Your agreements include: (a) on 2NT-P-?, 3C would be Stayman; (b) on  
> 1H-1NT-P-?, 2C would show diamonds; (c) any call not specifically  
> agreed otherwise is natural.
> 
> You bid 3C, natural by agreement (c), not alertable.  Partner alerts,  
> then bids 3D, also natural by agreement and not alertable.  Following  
> the DWS, you alert anyhow, so as not to communicate to partner that  
> he has misinterpreted your 3C bid.  Opponents inquire about 3D.  Over  
> to you.

I could quibble about the question -- alert rules may not be as you say 
-- but I know what you mean.  The person we need now is Marvin French, 
who would remind us that it's wrong to ask about one call.  What the 3C 
bidder might do is say "2NT was natural, 16-19," and then gesture to 
partner, who will explain 3C.  The real point is that this position only 
arises because the opponents have breached proper procedure, and even 
when they do, in the real world players will nearly always know what 
partner's bid means.

> Premise: It is possible to play bridge without violating any of its  
> laws.

Sure.  Just don't ever give MI.  The question is what to do after MI is 
already given.

From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> Remember that it is not illegal to give an incorrect explanation
> accidentally because you believe that your explanation is correct

Huh?!  This may be the most bizarre statement yet.  Of course MI is 
illegal, regardless of why you are giving it.  Otherwise there would be 
no reason for score adjustment in ordinary MI cases.

> If instead your explanation would have been incorrect and you instead give
> an explanation (possibly the correct one) after hearing your partner's
> explanation then you have intentionally violated Law 16B1 by selecting your
> response to an alternative suggested by the UI you received from your
> partner's explanation.

I couldn't believe Sven meant this, but he confirmed in a subsequent 
message.  I think he's in a minority of one on this one.

Let's say South makes a bid inconsistent with his hand, either misbid or 
psych.  North gives the correct systemic explanation, and subsequently 
all of North's and South's explanations are consistent with the system 
as verified to the satisfaction of the TD.  Further, South never "uses 
UI" (which we on BLML know means "never violates L16 or 73C").  North of 
course has no UI, and all his actions are entirely normal (no "fielding").

Is anyone besides Sven even slightly tempted to consider that there's 
been an infraction?