[blml] A strory with a conclusion

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <swillner at nhcc.net>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion
>
> Written explanations are fine in theory.  In practice, they are
> cumbersome, and at least in the ACBL, I doubt most players would
> tolerate them.  (How often to you see players consulting their
> opponents' SC instead of asking questions?)  And remember, dWS is only
> an issue _after_ partner gives MI.  Why do you want to complicate
> perhaps hundreds of deals for a theoretical improvement on one?
>

I don't, actually, but I think the Laws are clear on what to do if an 
opponent asks a question, even if partner has given MI.  However, if a 
player such as Herman feels that UI compels him to break several Laws, then 
I'm giving him a solution that will resolve his problem without breaking any 
Laws at all.  Herman keeps phrasing his argument that dWs is a choice 
between two "illegal" options.  I'm providing a third choice that is 
completely legal.  So, Herman now has an option to prevent the UI that leads 
to dWs solutions (deliberate MI) that falls within the Laws.  With a legal 
option available, he no longer has to choose between two "illegalities", but 
can simply write down his explanations and never have to lie.  Since he 
won't accept the assurances of the lawmakers that the "MS" is legal and 
"dWs" is not, I'm taking a different approach, and providing a legal 
alternative to dWs. I'm still waiting to see responses from Herman's 
acolytes.

It's not necessary that everyone write down their explanations.  I have no 
intention of doing so, since I think the reasoning behind dWs is specious at 
best.  But I have no intention of lying to my opponents either, in any 
situation.

Hirsch