[blml] "Acceptable"

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS


> Robert Geller wrote:
>> Jerry is certainly correct that sometimes, especially in
>> lower level games, there can be problems.  if  you
>> are familiar with the opponents systems then you can
>> help yourself by almost never asking questions during
>> the auction.    I agree this is less than desirable.
>> But unless we're using screens this seems unavoidable.
>>
>> But it's certainly not (IMO) a reason for throwing out the
>> laws as they now are.
>>
>
Herman writes:
> But that's not what we are doing. We are not trying to change the
> laws, we are trying to help you understand them in a consistent
> manner. YOU are the one that is trying to change the laws, by making
> something unacceptable which, despite all the talk, is still acceptable.

Raija:
If you mean by "acceptable" the 4NT-5D/one ace case, you have made it clear 
that it is acceptable to you to not explain the partnership agreement. It is 
unacceptable to a great many others, who will consider that action 
premeditated concealment of partnership agreement.

I don't want to continue the arguments, just wanted to comment on the 
"acceptable".