[blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS

[Steve Willner]

>>[Is temporary MI a problem...]
>>Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction?

 > From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
> You listen carefully to the opponents' auction, requesting  
> explanations as necessary, all the while carefully constructing a  
> picture of the opponents' possible and likely holdings.  This may  
> involve considerable mental effort; 
...
> Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of  
> the DWSists?  It certainly can't be good for them.

No doubt there's an indirect effect, but the main damage has already 
occurred when the initial MI was given.  At least in principle, the 
opponents have time to reconsider the auction before the opening lead.

Against that, the MS has the extra UI, which is sure to cause at least 
some problem.  How long will it take the opponents to decide whether 
they were possibly damaged?  (Yes, it's the TD's job, but don't rely on 
that in the ACBL!)

From: "David Burn" <dalburn at btopenworld.com>
> The MS clears up MI because MI is harmful while UI is not. The dWS does not
> clear up MI, and that is what's wrong with it. That's why the MS leads to
> better bridge.

I hope Jerry's question "Why not clear up MI at once" (i.e., the instant 
it was given) has become clear, but I have yet to see an answer.  At 
least in the specific case mentioned at the beginning, and despite 
Eric's response, it is far from clear to me that the MS is "better 
bridge."  Whoever wrote L20F5 didn't think MI is always worse than UI.

[in the MS]
 >>> There won't be MI, but there will be UI to both players, and either one
 >>> can potentially misjudge the LAs or "suggested over another."

From: "Stefanie Rohan" <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com>
> Yes, this happens sometimes. Players who are in receipt of UI often suffer 
> therefrom. Poor dears.

David Burn's objection (one of them) to the dWS was that it makes more 
work for TDs and ACs.  The point was that the MS is worse than the dWS 
in that respect.  (I know the various threads are a bit confusing, but I 
thought the context was clear.)

[asking questions to put opponents in a UI position]
>  If you know that 
> the answer to your question cannot possibly be of any use to you, but might 
> give the opponents a problem, I do not think you should ask.

I suppose this is a matter of personal ethics.  Some people would 
consider not asking to be a form of dumping, which is often prohibited.

> Perhaps this situation would never 
> come up, or would not be recognisable if it did. And I am talking about 
> doing it solely for the purpose of damaging the opponents.

I've seen it at least twice in the last year, and I don't play all that 
often (one session most weeks plus the occasional tournament day or two).

From: Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com>
> Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's
> bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify
> the harm.   So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing 
> with the problems created by UI.

Compare with:
"Yes, but MI is harmless unless it could have affected an opponent's
bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify
the harm.   So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing
with the problems created by MI."

MI is generally easier to recognize than UI -- a hand is grossly 
different than expected -- and I'd say it's generally easier to figure 
out what the adjusted score ought to be.