[blml] 40B3?

[Steve Willner]

> From: "richard willey" <richard.willey at gmail.com>
> What if the opponent's buy the contract after recieving an explanation
> of the 5D bid.  Herman's side is now defending the contract and not
> declaring...

If MI cause damage, there's an adjusted score.  No doubt damage is more 
likely if the opponents buy the contract, but I don't see any difference 
in principle.

I notice that no MS proponent has yet commented on the situation when 
the opponents have no reason to enter the auction.

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net
> ...   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.   
> ...  "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"?

I don't understand this argument.  Presumably the cheat will always 
claim misbid or psych, regardless of the truth.  What difference does it 
make which school the rest of us follow?  The non-cheats will always 
call attention to the possible MI, differing only in when they do so.

> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has
> made his argument for years. The advent of discussion
> on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again.
> Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am
> somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend
> much time on this back and forth stuff.
[Third through sixth snipped.]

It's distressing that some authorities (meaning not Grattan but those he 
quotes) are unwilling to consider that there's a real question which 
approach is better for the game.  I was "brought up" in the Majority 
School and have adhered to it until now.  However, the apparent absence 
of logical argument for it and Herman's sound arguments against have 
just about persuaded me that the MS is inferior.

Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read the 
Laws as supporting that position.  That's why an interpretation is needed.