[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook


> Peter Eidt wrote:
>>
>> Peter2:
>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning,
>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made.
>
> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided.
> You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that
> you're not breaking it. This is just too silly for words. It is the
> reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding
> aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was
> wrong to begin with.
>

Herman,

I've yet to see your response to my suggestion (although David Burn told us 
that Jeff Rubens came up with the idea previously, I hadn't seen that 
article).  If you perceive giving a correct answer to opponents as UI, and 
feel that you must go so far as to create deliberate MI to avoid it, why not 
simply carry around pads of paper, and give your explanations in writing to 
the opponents?  You will not see your partner's explanations, so you won't 
know whether or not partner has given MI or not. Any explanation you give 
will only be seen by the opponents, so you can't give UI to partner. 
Therefore, you will have no excuse to give MI to the opponents.  Further, I 
see nothing in the Laws that would prevent you from giving written 
explanations now.  There is nothing saying an explanation has to be spoken.

So there exists a method for you to avoid giving partner UI, without giving 
intentional MI. No Laws broken at all.  I'm curious that you haven't 
responded to this idea with enthusiasm, as it would allow you to not 
"awaken" partner, yet still fully inform your opponents about your 
agreements.

Well?  Problem solved without breaking any Laws. Does this render dWs 
obsolete at last?

Hirsch