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

[David Burn]

[JF]

You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once?  I will mention the
two main reasons:  The first is that North has no way of knowing that 4NT is
not Blackwood until later.

[DALB]

You've lost me again. At North's turn to call (in whatever auction) North is
entitled to elicit from East the systemic meaning of every call made so far
by West, and from West the systemic meaning of every call made so far by
East. So says Law 20F1 [2007 code] and so say I. Not only, therefore, does
North not have "no way of knowing that 4NT is not Blackwood", that knowledge
is his legal right (the legal fiction is that North has a complete copy of
East-West's methods available to him).

Per the MS, *before North acts*, North will ascertain from East that 4NT was
minors (because East will explain 5D as preference) and from West that West
thought 4NT was Blackwood (because he explained it as such). I really do not
understand what you are saying above. I think you may be basing some of what
you say on alerting regulations; but here, we assume that every call is
alertable and that a player will ask questions about every call whether
alerted or not. I hope so, because the only conclusion I can otherwise draw
is that you have completely lost your marbles. Not that I blame you for
this; the dWS would drive (and has driven) everyone insane (apart from
Herman, who was insane from the outset).

[JF] 

The second is that South might not ask any questions.

[DALB]

So what? Per the dWS, North will not know that 4NT is systemically not
Blackwood (indeed, this knowledge will deliberately be hidden from him by
the dWS lunatic sitting East). This is in direct contravention of L20F1, and
also in direct contravention of ornery common sense, and a Bad Thing for the
game of bridge. Per the MS, North will know that 4NT is systemically not
Blackwood. This is not only North's legal entitlement, but a Good Thing for
the game of bridge.

[JF]

Please permit me to rephrase slightly:  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, before
either opponent has taken any action that might be misled by the MI?

[DALB]

That is what we in the MS do. That is not what the dWS does. The MS clears
up MI. The dWS does not.

Take a short break, Jerry. Read the examples again, slowly and carefully.
And read what Herman says, which is that the dWS proposes to perpetuate MI
in order not to give UI. 

The MS clears up MI because MI is harmful while UI is not. The dWS does not
clear up MI, and that is what's wrong with it. That's why the MS leads to
better bridge. So when you ask me "why not clear up MI?" you are preaching
to the choir. Why not, indeed?

David Burn
London, England