[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: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook


> Hello Hirsh,
>
> Hirsch Davis wrote:
>>

>
>> 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?
>
> If this were to be the general way all explanations were given, this
> might work, but if it's only done when a dws problem arises, the mere
> fact that I suddenly start writing "indicates that a mistake has been
> made". As such, I don't believe it's a practical idea.
>
> But let's look at it in more detail: this method would certainly solve
> one of the problems the dWS is trying to solve: the UI. But it does
> not solve a secondary problem, which is that I would reveal that a
> mistake has been made, something L20F5 still forbids me to do
> (although the reason for that is not clear and I would not mind seeing
> it disappear). And it certainly does not solve a third problem: the
> one of revealing to opponents that a misunderstanding is under way,
> and that they might well sit back and double the final outcome. That
> is knowledge to which they are not entitled, and if I can hide it from
> them, I will.
> So you might see me writing the dws explanation on a piece of paper.
> And we'd be no further off.

To address your issues in order:

I believe that you are misunderstanding me.  I'm talking about ALL 
explanations, not just those in "dWs" situations.  If all explanations were 
written instead of oral, there would be no revelation to partner that there 
was a "dWs situation".

As far as the opponents knowing the wheels have come off, they are only 
entitled to know your system. However, if you and your partner's 
explanations revealed that the wheels had come off, they are certainly 
entitled to sit back and take the top.  That's generally what's supposed to 
happen when someone forgets system. There is nothing in the Law about 
letting the opponents know that you're having a misunderstanding, but the 
Laws are very explicit about providing the opponents with full and complete 
knowledge of your partnership agreements and understandings.

You've indicated previously that you believe (IMO incorrectly) that the Laws 
prevent you from answering questions accurately if you know that partner has 
given MI (in your opinion).  So, you choose which Laws you wish to break 
(again, I believe that no Laws are broken by correct explanations).

However, I'm offering you a different choice.  Here, you may be giving 
additional information to opponents that you're having an auction breakdown. 
But that's not against any Law.  So, the choice is now, break the Laws about 
giving correct explanations (illegal), or give opponents information that 
you and partner are not on the same wavelength (legal).

I've previously listed the Laws violated by dWs. If you feel that written 
explanations of all agreements violates any Laws, which are they?

Given a choice between a legal and an illegal method of dealing with a UI 
issue, which do you choose?

Hirsch