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

[Herman De Wael]

raija wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
> To: <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS
> 
> 
>>>> [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.
> 
> The trouble with this (as I see it) is that if a person is comfortable 
> breaking the law by answering an opponent's question about agreements with a 
> falsehood [ *one ace* when agreement is *diamond preference*], he might be 
> equally comfortable covering it up, by not calling the TD at the appropriate 
> time.  Where does it all end and how many intentional law breaks should one 
> be allowed in one hand?  IMO, none.
> 

But Raija, it's only and intentional law break if you consider it a 
law break. What Steve and I are trying to make happen is that the dws 
is accepted as not breaking the law, and maybe even obligatory. Then, 
your argument makes not more sense.
We are trying to figure out what the best law is, so saying that our 
actions break existing law brings nothing to this discussion!

> I also think the issue of what infractions are easier to recognize 
> (intentional MI, or use of UI) should not be a factor.  However, I think the 
> intentional MI is near impossible to recognize unless the player calls 
> attention to it himself at the appropriate time. But as said, one who can 
> boldfaced answer an opponent's question about agreements by explaining 
> something totally different than what the agreement is, is probably also one 
> who chooses not to bring the whole thing out in the open, unless he somehow 
> gets caught.  This sort of cat and mouse game is no longer a game I would 
> want to play.
> 

But the first MI is still there, and a dead give-away. The dws'er does 
not have to draw attention to his infraction, it's immediately clear 
when he calls the td for the first MI.
If MS win the day, whenever a player explains consistently, he has to 
maintain that his partner has explained correctly. He will not call 
the TD before the lead, and does not even have to call him after the 
hand. OTOH a dws-er can explain consistently, call before the opening 
lead, and accept the MI ruling. Which is better for bridge?

> Raija
> 

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