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

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

No, of course not. Because it continues to be cheating if it is not 
revealed at the appropriate time.
If a cheat were to subscribe to the DWS, and act as any DWS would 
(that is, call the TD at the appropriate time), he would not be a very 
effective cheat, would he?

The actions of a cheat and a dwsist are the same at one stage, but 
totally different at the very next. You cannot call someone a dwsist 
merely on the basis of his actions at the first moment. And you cannot 
call a player a cheat merely because his first action is the same as 
that of a cheat. His second action will reveal whether he is a cheat 
or a dwsist. He cannot be both.

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