[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

David Burn wrote:
> [GE]
> 
> However, the rulings and pronouncements of many years run counter to the
> suggestion that it is an infraction to convey UI to partner when complying
> with the requirement to disclose the partnership understanding.
> 
> [DALB]
> 
> Another thought has struck me. When partner has given MI, there is a
> requirement to disclose this fact at the end of the auction if one becomes
> declarer. Now, Herman may say that this is an "inconsistency" in the laws,
> because it involves an indication in some manner that a mistake has been
> made, so that L20F5 (in the 2007 code) is at variance with L75B. What it
> indicates to me, though, is that there is obviously a time limit on the
> L20F5 injunction not to indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.
> That time limit is usually: the end of the auction for the declaring side;
> the end of the hand for the defending side. 
> 

I believe the 2007L20F5 has a time limit, something the 1997L75D3 did 
not have.

> But when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation
> may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting"
> partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit
> implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken
> when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's
> explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in
> Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the
> partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible
> position.
> 

David, in a corner, now invents a totally new argument. The words 
"during the auction" are to be interpreted as "during the auction or 
until an opponent asks a question about partner's bidding".

Very clever argument, David. Do I really need to refute it?

Really, everyone, and Grattan, what is so terribly difficult in 
reading L20F5? "In any manner" means "not at all", "not under any 
circumstances". I have no problem with that reading - why do you have 
it? I have no problem with the inconsistency that this causes. I have 
no problem with David acting in a different manner than what I do. Why 
are you guys so hell-bent in believing the laws are consistent? Why do 
you insist that they must be?

Just accept that there is more than one way that is acceptable. That's 
all that I am doing.

I would really like to stop the circular part of the discussion here. 
There is nothing anyone is going to say that will convince the other camp.

Rather, I would like you guys to focus on something different. 
Regardless of what you think about it, I shall continue to act under 
the DWS school. I will be perfectly honest, explain everything to the 
table and the TD when the bidding (or play) is over.
Please tell me what your rulings are going to be.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html