[blml] 40B3?

[Herman De Wael]

Stefanie Rohan wrote:
>> [Herman, about DWS]  the desired purpose: allow partner to
>> land on his feet without the existence of UI.
> 
> 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. When there has been just a single 
> misexplanation, DWSists are in the same boat as normal players, and the side 
> may well be damaged.
> 
> But after a second misexplanation, the OS, following DWS principles, may 
> escape the damage that they were at first in danger of. Thus they are doing 
> better than breaking even as a result of an irregularity (the second 
> instance of giving MI).
> 
> A pair should never benefit from its own irregularity. Can you accept that, 
> Herman?

Yes, I can, Stefanie, and I don't want to escape from my first 
irregularity - but your point is only valid if there is a second 
irregularity. Which I don't believe there is.
Because it is non-damaging MI.
And if there is damage, then I'm not escaping from that one either.

What you seem to forget is that you are comparing the wrong sides: you 
are comparing me with a MS adept. And you are saying that because I 
end up better, I must be doing something unacceptable. We've covered 
that argument already - if it were true, you would be outlawing double 
squeezes and finesses as well.
What you should be comparing me with is the other table where no 
question is asked, but where the opponent just looks up the meaning of 
5Di. I am not better off than they are. The infraction I might make 
(and I don't believe that is an infraction) is that I don't say "4NT 
was not Blackwood". The fact that I don't give the systemic meaning of 
5Di is irrelevant, since that meaning is irrelevant as well.

If you don't see what I mean, then turn the example around:
4NT was intended as Blackwood, but explained as minors. Now the 
meaning of 5Di becomes obvious, and not a single opponent will ask 
about the meaning. Do you believe that this opponent is damaged from 
not knowing that we are systemically playing "0123"?
But now suppose I am playing against a lunatic, who does ask what 5Di 
means. Should I now be subjected to a worse score than the 99 other 
tables where the question is not asked?

And this brings in a very important argument. Let's change seats, and 
you're the 4NT bidder, and I'm the opponent. I know your partner is 
intending to show diamond preference, but I ask anyway, because I know 
you're a MS adept and you're going to reveal to me that there was a 
mistake. Do you really want to write laws that give an advantage to:
a) the lazy opponent;
b) the very clever opponent.
I don't want the laws to be like that.

> 
> Stefanie Rohan
> London, England 
> 

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