[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Sven Pran wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
> ..............
>> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call
>> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was
>> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to
>> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present
>> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right?
> 
> I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to establish
> that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect explanation in
> fact was correct.
> 
> Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating.
> 
> Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope not, and I
> don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of my respect
> as proving yourself a dishonest man.
> 
> Sven
> 

Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you 
going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when 
I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone 
else could get away with it, easily.
Is that what you really want?

I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. 
If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's 
stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that 
someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information 
all along.
And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they 
allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% 
certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. 
You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one 
requires mind reading to the extreme!

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