This interruption is made to tell/ask you something about a legal problem that is generated here.
By logic reasoning it is possible to obtain a lot of knowledge about possible compositions of the hand a 1¨ opener holds.
Now the question is raised:
Does one have to inform the opponents about these conclusions from this reasoning, or can one suffice by telling the opponents, that your 1¨ opening partner has got a hand with 11-19 hcp's, but that in MAF his hand does fit into the description of any other opening bid, while adding to this statement, that the hand complies with the legal demand, and so always contains at least 3 diamonds.

After this probability data have been brought in. Much more is discovered about the probabilities of the possible compositions of the 1¨ opening call. This knowledge is very useful.
Again you can put the question:
Do the opponents have the right to know the same as you and your partner know?

Another question is about the rebid of 2©/ª after an 1¨ and e.g. a 1NT response. This rebid shows, as MAF players know, a hand with a void/singleton in §, a 4-card ©, not more than 4 spades and the remains (at least 4) diamonds. This all can be discovered by logical reasoning.
The questions are now:
Is the responder obliged to alert this 2© rebid? and: Does it suffice to tell that the hearts are real the opener is strong (16-19 hcp's), and say to the specific question about the length of the heart suit: "You must find out this yourself, like I did."?

I have no answer on these ethic questions? Both possible answers can be sustained with good arguments. I ask you, who reading this and having no doubts about the proper answer, please to let me know what your opinion and arguments are in this matter.

Talking about ethic matters, there is another debatable question in MAF. All Sohl responses are "multi-way ". Always one of the meanings is: "secret mysterious hand ".
To freshen up your memory:
With a Sohl-response the opener is forced to describe his hand. He has to do this usually, by calling a limited amount of rebids which have predefined meanings. The Sohl responder normally does so with hands of certain known types. One of those types may be anything and is described as: "secret mysterious hand ".
As a responder, it is very well conceivable, that you hold a hand, at which you need the information, a Sohl response could provide, while the system (MAF) has not defined your type of hand.
Now the question arises, how to explain a Sohl response:

• is the opener allowed to say:
  • this response is forcing
  • it can mean anything
  • it asks me to describe my hand in a specific way
• does the opener have to say:
  • this response is forcing
  • often it denotes "one out of 7 things" and after that you explain 6 of them one by one, after which you say: "and 7: it may yet have just as well another meaning "
  • it asks me to describe my hand in a specific way

It's annoying, but inevitable if you play MAF, that you've to explain things very often. Fortunately this a good training for you and your partner; it's a compensation. Especially the explanation of the Sohl responses takes a lot of time if you do it completely. Many opponents lose their concentration or cannot memorize the explanation.
For those reasons I prefer the first explanation. Is this allowed?

The last subject brings up a third and final ethic question:
Is it really ethic at all, to apply complex conventions like Sohl?
One could say that on one hand the convention is not more complex than Stayman/Jacoby is. On the other hand, Sohl (still) is for many opponents a set of new complex looking conventions.