[blml] A strory with a conclusion

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
> And will you outlaw double squeezes, defensive signalling, and RKCB 
> for that same reason?
>
> I apologize for sounding ridiculous, but it is you who uses the sole 
> argument that since I'm doing it to better my scores, it must be wrong!
>   

Hmm, why not propagate kicking footballers in the shin, claiming it to 
be "justifiable attempted manslaughter". It would better your score. Oh, 
it is against the rules? But I believe that it would remove the problem 
with "divers" in the penalty zone, getting penalty kicks they are not 
entitled to. Using "JAM", there would be no divers, because I hit them 
every time.

> Of course I won't do anything that will lower my scores. That includes 
> revoking (the penalty is severe enough to discourage it), giving MI in 
> ordinary cases, and making use of UI. It also includes giving MI in 
> order to avoid giving UI. You believe that this is not allowed, but I 
> believe that it is. And saying that I'm doing it to better my scores 
> is no argument in your favour.
>
> Why am I constantly battling against people who use bogus arguments? 
> Maybe because there are no REAL arguments that make the DWS practices 
> unlawful!
>   

Herman, there has been an argument, cited again and again. You did not 
answer it once. It is that the makers of the rules have told us that 
explaining our agreements correctly is paramount, and anything else has 
to take a back seat. I know, you do not want to hear that, but there it 
is. Of course, if the intent of the lawmakers is a bogus argument, then 
I am guilty. Go on, ignore how the game should be played. I don`t care. 
I will go on playing Bridge, and you can play dWs.