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

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Matthias,

Condolences if the loss was personal, and short is good ...

Matthias Berghaus wrote:
> Jerry Fusselman schrieb:
>> [Jerry]
>>
>> Thus, two very smart guys, you and David, have asserted that UI is
>> harmful and MI is harmless.  Had your two posts not happened, I would
>> have said nothing.  Do you still deny that six days ago in this
>> thread, you agreed with David that UI is harmless?
>>
>>   
> Jerry,
> 
> I am sorry that circumstances beyond my control ( in this case a 
> funeral) do not permit me to spend much time on this. So I make it 
> short. UI is harmless * to my opponents*. It may well harm my partner, 
> and through him me as well, but there is no harm done to my opps. In 
> fact it is AI to them, whatever happened. Not that this makes it 
> desirable, of course. MI is harmful to my opps, most of the time. Yes, 
> there may be cases where describing partner's hand instead of describing 
> the agreement does not harm them. But they are protected by the laws anyway.
> 

Matthias, the question Jerry was asking was not whether the one or 
other action was better for the opponents, or for the offenders, but 
whether they were better for the game of bridge.

In that sense, both UI and MI are harmless, because the TD will make 
certain that any harm be rectified.

And then Jerry poses two questions: do you believe MI is worse for the 
game than UI? And if so, why then did the lawmakers write L20F5 in the 
direction they did - leaving the MI be and preventing the UI. If MI 
were worse than UI, would you not expect the law to say that 
misexplanations be corrected immediately?

> Matthias
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html