[blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about themisunderstanding?

[Herman De Wael]

Stefanie Rohan wrote:
> (About the five tables)
> 
> [HDW]
> 
> I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that
> West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus
> believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to
> pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300.
> 
> [SR]
> 
> This story does not address the "lack of consistency" you cite, because the 
> normal ending, as long as the opponents are all informed at the end of the 
> hand that they have been given misinformation, is that they will say that 
> they would have doubled 5D. At all tables the "Blackwood" explainers will go 
> for 800. So it is not such a great example.
> 

Yes Stefanie, you have just grasped the real issue here. What is the 
normal rectification at tables 1-4?

According to current practice, it is to 5D-3 undoubled!!!!!!!
Without the added information that South may not hold more diamonds 
than clubs, there is no real reason to double 5 diamonds (just imagine 
that the cards show this).

That is the inconsistency.

If you believe that the correct rectification at tables 1-4 is 5DX-3, 
then of course you do away the inconsistency, but you do so as a 
member of the Kooijman School. Ton Kooijman has suggested that, behind 
screens, then current practice of giving 5D-3 undoubled should change 
into giving  5D doubled, since West should be entitled to the 
information that there has been a misunderstanding.

And THAT is the subject of this thread!

> Though it does, as DALB notes, highlight the danger of a dWSist who forgets 
> to mention the misinformation.
> 

Answered to David, that one.

> Stefanie Rohan
> London, England 
> 

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