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

[Eric Landau]

On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:

> 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.

Nor have I.  Nor have I said he has.  What have I misrepresented?   
Herman's words are right there, three paragraphs above.  Am I wrong  
to read "what makes you think... there could not be" as an assertion  
that there "could be"?  Am I wrong that "a cheat who explains 5D as  
'one ace' nevertheless" will be giving the same explanation that a  
DWS follower would?  Am I wrong that "if the player wants to cheat,  
then he will" means that if he does he is cheating?

> 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.

It must be a lot easier indeed to cheat with the MS, if "a cheat who  
has never heard of DWS" is cheating when he misdescribes his  
agreements but is not cheating by when he takes exactly the same  
action but justifies it by citing DWS principles!  Just "subscribe  
to" the DWS and it's not cheating any more!  Rather handy for the  
DWSists, ne?

> If your primary goal is to make cheating more difficult,
> switch to the DWS.

If my primary goal were to make cheating more difficult, and I acted  
on that goal, I would break laws right and left and get myself  
drummed out of competitive bridge.  Fortunately, the laws give  
priority to making the game easy and pleasant for the non-cheats over  
making it difficult and unpleasant for the cheats, recognizing that  
these goals may conflict, and, as my personal view is that they are  
right to do so, I am not conflicted on this point.


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