[blml] A good idea

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefanie Rohan" <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] A good idea


>> If they indeed agreed, it is POSSIBLE they agreed because Herman is in a
>> position of authority in law matters in Belgium and they choose to not
>> disagree with a view held by the person in a position that has the
>> authority
>> to issue law interpretations in Belgium.
>
> This is why I think it is so important for the DSC to publish something
> forceful enough to make it impossible to Herman to retain his
> "interpretation".  No matter how resistant they are to playing monkey to
> Herman's organ grinder.
>
> Stefanie Rohan
> London, England


Grattan has included the following in many recent posts, as a preface.
It could not be said more clearly. And this response has been graciously 
repeated over the years but HdW is not accepting it.  I believe Richard 
Willey has the best solution.

"In situations where a misexplanation
has been given by partner a player
must not indicate that partner has made
a mistake. However, in his own
explanations the player is obliged to state
 the partnership agreement correctly.
Knowing this, it is the gravest possible
violation of law to deceive opponent by
not doing so."
      ~ Grattan Endicott, 2002 (paraphrase)