Re: unauthorised info?

Grattan Endicott<grandaeval <at> tiscali.co.uk
Skype: grattan.endicott
*************************************************
"  'Logic':    The art of thinking and reasoning 
in strict accordance with the limitations and 
incapacities of the human misunderstanding."
                         ['The Devil's Dictionary']
*************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf
Of Herman De Wael
Sent: 03 March 2011 08:46
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] unauthorised info?

Sven Pran wrote:
  ............
 But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to 
go by L16

 Please try to avoid incorrect quotes.

 I have never refused to use Law 16. My point is that 
 damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without
 corresponding violations of Law 16.
>
 Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: 
"Should you not ask about the alerted call before making 
your own subsequent call?" can be said
 to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over 
another. The remark itself is of course a clear violation 
of Law 73, but the call eventually chosen is not 
automatically a violation of Law 16.
>
[Herman]

No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16.
But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a 
violation of L16, how can it then be different from 
the call the player would have chosen without asking 
the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as 
the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged?

I am not saying that you should always use L16, but only 
that if there is damage, it must _necessarily_ be a damage 
which will be dealt with using a L16 scenario.

There simply cannot be damage without there also being a 
L16 infraction!
.....................................................

+=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested 
that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider 
a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right.
A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing 
the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did
consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto 
to be a peer of Z as a player. 
   To some extent I think Sven and Herman are debating how 
many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Herman is 
unwise to say 'necessarily' because if a situation were to 
arise in which L16 was not applicable Sven is right in saying 
that Law 73 would embrace it. Such a situation is difficult 
to envisage, and I have not seen that Sven provided an illustration, but
Sven is correct in principle. 
    Law 73 does allow the Director to apply a penalty if he 
judges that the player has made a deliberate attempt to convey 
something to his partner, whether that partner hears the 
message or not, and whether he acts upon it or not.  
                          ~ Grattan ~   +=+  

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml