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

[Herman De Wael]

David Burn wrote:
> 
> I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted a case
> that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for some time.
> The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat - I know
> you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for the game
> in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the bargain. But the
> dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution.
> 

OK, I apologise for my rash response to the earlier message.

What makes you think that at Sven's table there could not be seated 
(instead, I emphasise) a cheat who has never heard of DWS, but who 
explains 5Di as "one ace" nevertheless? If the player wants to cheat, 
then he will.

The DWS is no different from the current wording of L20F5 and others: 
stay quiet now, explain and call the TD at the earliest possible moment.

To say that one law encourages cheating more than some other law is an 
unsubstantiated fact.

> David Burn
> London, England
> 

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