[blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding?

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [following address discontinued:
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *****************************
> "In situations where a misexplanation 
> has been given by partner a player 
> must not indicate that partner has made 
> a mistake. However, in his own 
> explanations the player is obliged to state
>  the partnership agreement correctly. 
> Knowing this, it is the gravest possible 
> violation of law to deceive opponent by 
> not doing so."
>    ~ Grattan Endicott, (2002 - paraphrase)
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:34 AM
> Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing 
>                                   about the misunderstanding?
> 
> 
>> In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few 
>> weeks, I have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means 
>> we have to discuss something far more important than the DWS.
>>
> +=+ 'we have to' - really?  "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+
> 

You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote.
I think you are neglecting your duties here, Grattan.
I think Ton might find this discussion very interesting!

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