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

[David Burn]

[JF]

But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI,
why not clear up the MI at once?

[DALB]

You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. West alerts
4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit
preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the American
soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). Now
North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in
Law. So does West, of course, but since he's not allowed to know (or, what
is the same thing, to act on his new-found knowledge) this does not matter.
Similarly, East knows that West has one ace, not which minor West prefers,
but since East is not allowed to know, this does not matter either. Maybe
East-West will know their methods next time, and how can that be bad for the
game?

The dWS position lets the MI go uncorrected. East alerts 5D as "one ace",
thus confirming the notion that 4NT was Blackwood, which it was not. This
fubars the whole thing. Herman has claimed that North-South are not entitled
to know that East-West are having a misunderstanding. It is true that
North-South are not explicitly entitled to this knowledge, but neither are
they expressly forbidden to acquire it.

Under the dWS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what West has
got, but not what East has got, nor will they know what the East-West system
actually is. Under the MS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what
West has got, what East has got, and what the East-West system actually is.
Now, which of those positions is "better for bridge"?

David Burn
London, England