[blml] 40B3?

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Stefanie Rohan a écrit :
>> [
> Why do you not understand that explanations are for opponents' benefit, not 
> yours?  Here is something that might help:
>
> Accept the premise that a side responsible for an irregularity should do no 
> better than break even as a result. 
I know what you're writing about, but I can't agree with the premise, 
the way it's written. See L72A5.
Once again, I'd like to mention the situation when a MPC has to be led, 
resulting in a cold top.
Another case is when you made a BOOT and the ensuing classical "gamble" 
happens to work.

Perhaps you'll say once again that I'm guilty of playing with words, but 
here we are in a denagerous situation, because many players believe in 
what you said, the way you said it, and we have a duty to put them back 
on the right track.

Best regards

   Alain