[blml] seven arguments for dws

[David Burn]

One more once...

[HdW]

ONE: consistency

Under the MS, a player must not reveal that a mistake has been made, but
when he is asked a question about some next bid, he is obliged to reveal
that the mistake was made. Under the DWS, the same rule applies throughout:
you must not reveal that a mistake has been made, never ever.

[DALB]

This is simply false; even though a dWSist "must not reveal that a mistake
has been made" in replying to a question, he must (on occasion) reveal that
a mistake has been made when he selects a call or play in accordance with
his partnership's methods. Herman has never actually answered this point,
even though it has been made repeatedly by Eric and by me. The reason for
this is that the point is unanswerable; it is ludicrous for Herman to claim
that a dWSist "never ever" reveals that a mistake has been made.

Of course, Herman may object along these lines: "when I said never ever, I
meant never ever in terms of alerts or answers to questions, not in terms of
calls or plays". But his precious L20F5 says "in any manner". He relies on
this only insofar as it suits his purpose, to the point of monomania.

[HdW]

TWO: bias

The change in situation that occurs within the MS does not occur at all
tables every time. It only occurs when a question is asked.

[DALB]

So what? It is assumed that when a question is asked, the correct reply will
be given.

[HdW]

THREE: completeness

The DWS gives the players a set of rules that they can always follow. The MS
is incomplete in this regard. What should a player do who is somewhat
certain that his partner gave a correct explanation?

[DALB]

He and his partner should learn the system. But they should not play dWS,
because that allows them to cheat without being detected. A dWS appeals
committee will say "Well, they told you what one of your opponents had, not
what your opponents' methods were, and you still got it wrong." Even Kaplan
knew that this was stupid.

[HdW]

FOUR: mind reading

If the MS would try to issue guidelines as to how certain a player ought to
be before he is allowed to give the consistent explanation

[DALB]

A partnership should always be certain of its methods, should it not? The MS
has no other "guidelines" to offer. But:

[HdW]

the player will always explain that he is that certain. There is no way for
a director to know that this is false.

[DALB]

Of course there is. Unless the player can exhibit compelling reasons for his
certainty, the director will always assume that any assurances of certainty
are false. The main reason that the MS is better than the dWS is that it's
harder to cheat playing the MS.

[HdW]

FIVE: penalising

As I believe that it is in a player's best interest not to reveal a
misunderstanding

[DALB]

This in itself should at least give cause to enquire whether or not the dWS
is the work of a certifiable lunatic. Do you suggest that a player may
choose, at whim, to reveal a misunderstanding?

[HdW}

How do you deal with a case in which a player has broken his obligation of
giving UI to his partner

[DALB]

I assume this means "of not giving UI to his partner". That said, here is
something important that Grattan and I have maintained over and over again
in the course of this discussion, and that Herman has ignored throughout.

The noun "information" comes from the verb "inform". Although Herman's
English is excellent, he may not know what this word means.

That which "informs" is that which shapes our actions; if we have a piece of
"information", it will affect the way in which we act. I may know that
Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but to me that is a piece of data, not a
piece of information. I cannot honestly say that any of the actions I have
taken in my life has been influenced in the slightest by the fact that
Brussels is the capital of Belgium.

Now, if my partner gives an explanation of one of my bids, that to me is a
piece of data, not a piece of information. I cannot act on it; indeed, the
Laws of bridge say that I must not act on it. Similarly, if he explains my
4NT as "Blackwood" when our methods are "minors", that to me is a piece of
(irrelevant) data. I cannot act on it, and the Laws of bridge say that I
must not act on it, so I will explain his 5D as "preference" and not "one
ace".

[HdW]

SIX: additional UI

Under MS rules, that type of UI exists in both directions.

[DALB]

Well, that form of unauthorised data has the capacity to exist in both
directions. But the dWS seems to me to be based on the premise that once
some UD has been created, it will turn into UI for both members of the
partnership. If they're not cheats, it won't.

[HdW]

SEVEN: similarity to screens (and on-line)

But with MS rules, some tables will be entitled to the knowledge of a
misunderstanding.

[DALB]

All tables are entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding - that is, if
they can obtain this information by asking questions, they are allowed to do
so. You may think it distasteful to seek an advantage by asking the
opponents what their bids mean. I think it considerably more distasteful for
the opponents to be able to adjust their explanations as they go along, in
the light of one another's previous explanations.

Herman, me old China, it would soothe me if you could at least give some
serious thought to the points I have made under ONE and FIVE above.

David Burn
London, England