[blml] A strory with a conclusion

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
>> Let me remind you that the dWS is an advice to ethical players. The 
>> full advice includes the obligations about calling the director and such.
>>     

If all we are talking about, ever, is ethical players, where is the 
problem? They can handle UI as well as any difficult point arising from 
dWs. Since there would be not problem with UI the dWs would never have 
been thought of, because nobody would have felt any need for that. If 
all people were saints any approach would do.

>> Unethical players can use either the dWS or the MS to keep silent 
>> about the first MI. In addition, the MS (in its majority) commit a 
>> secondary MI, that of not correctly describing the intention of the 
>> second bidder.

Now you go inventing again. Nowhere (except in your imagiantion, maybe) 
is any description of partner`s intentions called for. The laws 
prescribe description of agreements. Would you care to cite a law that 
says I have to explain partner`s intentions? If you do, would you 
furthermore care how I am to know his intentions? I have often set some 
suit as trumps to ask for a otherwise hard to locate queen, and then 
bidding some contract in another denomination. another time I asked for 
aces to learn how high to sacrifice (see Burn`s law of 8). Sometime I 
ask for partner`s length in my short suit to see wheter I want to play 
NT or not. Do you think my partner knew that at that time?

>>  If they keep schtum about that one as well, they have 
>> acted triply unethically.
>>
>> And I repeat - I don't want to have my partner "not use UI". I want to 
>> give him the possibility of working it out (and choosing the 
>> "suggested" alternative) of his own doing, without being restricted by 
>> UI regulations.
>>
>>     
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> OK, tell me how it is easier to cheat by dWS than MS? Partner has 
>>> misexplained your bid, hasn't he? Isn't the TD always going to arrive?
>>>       
>> Why should he, if he isn`t called? Playing dWs I can misinform to my 
>> heart`s content, and then keep quiet about it if I guessed partner`s 
>>     
>
> But partner has misexplained MY hand. I already have the obligation of 
> calling the TD. If I don't, then I'm acting unethically, regardless of 
> my further belonging to one school or the other!
>   

Surprise, that it just what I am talking about. I am not concerned with 
ethical players. They are not the problem. The unethical ones, 
especially the downright cheaters, are what I am concerned with. I 
continue to maintain that they can wreak infinitely more havoc using dWs 
than with giving UI, because you will practically alwas be seen in UI 
cases, but not necessarily in MI cases.

>   
>
>
>   
>> The law says I have 
>> to explain my agreements. I do not have to explain partner`s intentions, 
>> as I am not privy to them.
>>     
>
> But here you are privy to them. He has told you what they were.
> And opponents ARE entitled to know the answering scheme to "RKCBlackwood".
>   

> (surely you understand my argument here. If your partner explains your 
> bid as "Berghaus convention" and then bids 4Di, your opponents are 
> entitled to know what the 4Di response to Berghaus shows, even if the 
> Berghaus convention does not apply)
>   

Yes and no, actually. As per existing laws they are entitled to know 
what the bid systemically shows, and per regulations they are entitled 
(in any country I know about, which are not that many) to know what X 
would show if partner had answered a Berghaus asking bid.

>   
>
> You minsunderstand. I am not at a disadvantage over cheaters, I am at 
> a disadvantage over MS bidders. Or rather, I want to have an advantage 
> over MS users. Which I believe is ethically correct.
>   

Come again? You think it is ethically correct to play the game 
differently, because it gives you an advantage?

>   
>
>>> How can the second MI go unnoticed? The first one is glaringly 
>>> obvious
>>>       
>> Hello? Earth to orbit? Why has it to be "glaringly obvious"? If you only 
>> use examples where this is case, then you should try to think about 
>> examples where it isn`t. I`ll give you one. Playing shape relays your 
>> partner forgets that the next step ask for length in clubs, believing to 
>> ask for diamond length. You think that your next relay is RKCB for 
>> clubs, partner having shown 5. He explains it as RKCB for diamonds 
>> (because he has shown 5 of them, believing you to have asked for diamond 
>> length).. As this is the first time that a question was asked you now 
>> continue to explain on that basis. Now you bid 6 diamonds, which makes. 
>> Where is the "glaringly obvious" part here? If you don`t confess nobody 
>> will be the wiser. You purportedly asked for diamonds (you may even have 
>> done so if _partner_ remembered correctly, makin this just an UI case), 
>> and then bid slam in the suit, having discovered length with partner. 
>> _Nobody_ would ever notice.
>>
>>     
>
> OK, but as I said before, DWS users will admit to the first MI. 

Hehehe. Will you hold examinations and hand out licenses to play dWs, 
anyone failing the test having to play the traditional methods? Get 
real. That is wishful thinking. Oh, I do not believe that you want to 
cheat someone, but according to you everyone should play dWs, I have the 
nagging suspicion that not everyone will measure up to the standards 
needed....

> It 
> does not take the DWS to cheat. A MS adept can easily cheat in exactly 
> the same way (deliberately misexplaining without admitting it 
> afterwards) and again "nobody would ever notice".
>
> If you want to cheat, you really don't need the DWS to do it.

True, I do not need dWs to cheat, but it is much easier that way.

>  And if 
> you want to play ethically, the DWS is better than the MS. But that's 
> just my personal opinion (and those of Konrad and Alain, and probably 
> others).
>
>