[blml] 40B3?

[Eric Landau]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> 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, 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 would do nothng against the laws, but, as he points out, if he  
were to, he would surely not be caught at it.  Of course, that would  
be cheating.  The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by  
deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently  
calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time.   
If the latter aspect of the DWS protocol were to be somehow forgotten  
or omitted, we would be left with outright cheaters getting away with  
outright cheating.  When Herman acts according to the DWS, he would,  
of course, never cheat, but, as he himself says, "anyone else could  
get away with it, easily".  Indeed, in  several recent messages,  
including the above, he tells us just how "anyone else" might lie to  
the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily".  That sounds  
more like an argument against the DWS than for it.  Or is Herman  
trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field  
against the outright cheaters"?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net