[blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS

[Matthias Berghaus]

David Burn schrieb:
> [HdW]
>
> After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good.
>
> [DALB]
>
> What is good about it? It does not matter how much UI you create, as long as
> your partner plays ethically. What the dWS does is compound confusion for
> the opponents, and that must be bad.
>
>
>   

Snipped

> As I have said above, the creation of UI simply does not matter, as long as
> it is correctly ignored. The creation of MI does matter - there is no such
> thing as "harmless MI", whereas all UI is harmless (or if it does harm, the
> harm is easily remedied).

"Harmless" is a matter of viewpoint, David. While I agree with you, 
Herman thinks that the L16 restriction and adjustments for use of UI do 
much more harm to his score than any L12 adjustment because of MI ever 
would. That is probably true, but who cares? He fails to realize that 
being seen lying about agreements is much worse for Bridge because it 
undermines trust. Using UI is easier forgiven, for he who is without sin 
may cast the first stone, so those stones stay untouched. Being seen 
succumbing to human nature (or even just misjudging what is suggested 
and what not), and then accepting the adjustment with grace, apologizing 
to all at the table, is much easier to forgive than lying on purpose. 
Forgetting the system is forgiven, too, because every Bridge player has 
done so himself, while lying is rarely forgiven. "I did so to describe 
my partner's hand" won't help much. A free translation of a German 
proverb: "Lie once, and people will not believe you, even if you tell 
the truth now". Probably based on a fable by Aesop.

>  That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels
> sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless,
> whereas the exact opposite is the case.
>   

I couldn`t agree more.

Best regards
Matthias

> David Burn
> London, England
>
>
>