[blml] 40B3?

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
someone wrote:

> However I think it could be done with fewer words eg.
> <In trying to explain fully and correctly his partner's call 
> a player may unintentionally reveal he thinks his partner 
> has misexplained a prior call. In such a case there is no 
> violation of law 20F5(a)>"
>                                           ~ Grattan ~  +=+
> 

I consider this to be a helpful addition. I respectfully bow to the 
WBFLC for this clarification. I would like to ask the WBFLC however to 
consider the following:

What they would do, in adapting this clarification, is to change the 
status of the MS action from "acceptable" to "legal". I believe this 
to be a change of Law, but the WBFLC is empowered to do that. It would 
seem that this change of status for the MS causes a change in status 
for the DWS as well: from acceptable to illegal. Indeed, my main 
argument was always that I needed to break one law or another.

Can the WBFLC then please describe what the penalty shall be for any 
DWS action?
What shall a TD do when he sees a player consistently explaining his 
partner's bid after hearing a misexplanation of his own bidding.

There is no UI, the MI will be ruled upon, and the infraction is the 
one of "not giving UI, not providing rectification for MI".
You could compare this to the penalty for the specific infraction of 
not correcting MI (as dummy or declarer) before the opening lead. 
There too, no specific penalty is prescribed. The penalty for the 
continued existence of MI during the play is considered enough. 
Indeed, as a player, it would not occur to me not do take the 
prescribed action. The penalty is severe.
But in the DWS case, if the penalty is no more than the MI ruling on 
the original MI, and on the added MI (which should be very small), 
then I am inclined to take that penalty if the alternative is giving 
UI, barring my partner from doing something sensible.

Oh yes, that would be cheating. So I won't that. But I may do 
something else: claim that I misbid. It has become a regular occurence 
for Directors to rule on the actions rather than on the intentions. 
"You do exactly as a cheat would do" says John Probst. So in future 
all players who claim misbid should be treated as DWS cheats.

And that still does not answer my question. What is the penalty. 
Remember that the normal penalty is one I can live with. I believe the 
alternative (with the UI restrictions) to be worse than the MI 
penalty. So how are you going to rule. Ah yes, David said: 90IMP penalty.

So in future all misbids will be penalized by a 90IMP PP for DWS cheating.

Has the WBFLC really thought this one through?

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