[blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy?


> Eric Landau wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Landau wrote:
>>>
>>>> But which hand?  In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT
>>>> asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as
>>>> Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand
>>>> perfectly.  But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his
>>>> *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood
>>>> when in fact it is no such thing.
>>> But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5
>>> explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI!
>>> We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond
>>> preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word.
>>> But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand!
>>
>> Say what?  Herman's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect
>> explanation, and Herman, knowing it is incorrect, confirms it.  His
>> partner has made a mistake, but he has deliberately lied to prevent
>> that mistake from being revealed.  And that's OK because the MI was
>> his partner's fault in the first place?
>>
>
> Say What?
>
> Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and
> Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a
> mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And
> that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question?
>
> Sorry Eric, but as long as you keep hammering on my supposed
> illegalities, I shall keep hammering on yours. The laws really do say
> that you are not allowed to correct partner's mistake. In any manner.
> And yet you do, and you think that this is OK. I really wonder what
> you do, as TD, when called at a table where the following has just
> happened.
> "4NT" - "what's that?" - "Blackwood" - "no partner, minors!"
>

No Herman.  Eric is not breaking any Law by correctly answering with the 
system agreement.  He is not correcting his partner. He is simply correctly 
answering the opponents. In fact, his partner is now barred by the UI from 
recovering and remembering the correct system.

Eric is simply doing what the Laws say he must do.  And, as I've indicated 
in another post, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge 
indicate that a "must" imperative under the Laws is the strongest imperative 
used, even stronger than the "may not" that you like to hide behind.

When you give your MI, L20F4 says that you must immediately call the TD when 
you realize that you have done so.  Do you disregard this Law also?

Hirsch