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

[Eric Landau]

On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> 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.

So even Herman recognizes that "a cheat who has never heard of DWS"  
but "wants to cheat" will invent the DWS on the spot!  Need we then  
discuss the DWS any further?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net