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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Feb 11, 2008 9:56 AM, Eric Landau wrote:
>
> 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?
>

You misrepresent Herman.  He never said that DWS was the only way to
cheat.  Quite the contrary.  He has said several times that it is
easier to cheat with the MS than with the DWS, becuase it is easier
for use of UI to go undetected than for continuation of MI to go
undetected.  If your primary goal is to make cheating more difficult,
switch to the DWS.

Jerry Fusselman