[blml] A strory with a conclusion

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion


>
> Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular deal
> EW will always pass, regardless of explanations.  NS have a bidding
> misunderstanding.  In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be
> much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North
> and South will have UI.  In the dWS approach, EW questions may still
> matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will
> have UI.  Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these
> circumstances_ better for the game?
>

I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about.  If N-S write 
out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of giving 
them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is constrained by E-W 
questions.  Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it right now. 
IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be 
considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without 
violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not have to be 
spoken.

And yes, I'm concerned about the case where a pair can ask questions of 
another pair for the specific purpose of creating UI, thereby limiting their 
opponents' auction.

However, the MS is far better for the game than dWs simply because the game 
is played under a set of Laws.  The MS follows those Laws as written, dWs 
involves a deliberate Law violation. While those Laws may not have 
desireable results on any particular hand, if we start allowing deliberate 
violation to go unpunished, then the game as we know it ceases to exist.  We 
set the precendent for allowing players to make up their own rules as they 
go along, which IMO is far worse for the game than any form of UI or MI.

Hirsch