[blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

[snip]

>When at last you will realize that there is a huge dilemma
>here, maybe we can go on to trying to figure out which of
>the two laws has precedence?

Law 75C:

".....a player shall disclose all special information
conveyed to him through partnership agreement....."

Law 75D2:

".....nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has
been made....."

Australian Constitution, section 92:

"On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade,
commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by
means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be
absolutely free....."

Richard Hills:

Section 92 of the Aussie Constitution was inserted to get
rid of the internal tariffs which the six Aussie colonies
had imposed on each other before Federation in 1901.

But for its first eight decades of existence, the
Commonwealth of Australia could not fully exercise the
powers specifically granted to it elsewhere in the
Constitution (section 51).  This was because the De Wael
School justices of the Aussie High Court interpreted the
section 92 phrase "absolutely free" out of context to
rule that absolutely anything the Federal Government did
which might impinge on interstate trade was unconstitutional.

Nowadays the High Court sensibly limits its interpretation of
"absolutely free" to the originally intended meaning of
"absolutely no customs duties".

Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can
be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context
of Law 20F1:

".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a
player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)."

Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own
calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining
a circumstance when "normally" does not apply.

So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by
using the Law 20F1 context.  Pard does their own thing
explaining and alerting your calls, and you do your own thing
explaining and alerting pard's calls.  If your explanation
and alert of pard's calls is inconsistent with a previous
alert or explanation by pard, tant pis.  Since, according to
the De Hills School, Law 75D2 is merely supplementary to Law
20F1, Richard Hills chooses to always obey Law 75C when asked
a direct question and/or obey the Aussie alert regulation
when under a direct obligation to alert.

There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the
De Hills School over the De Wael School.  When answering a
direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells
the truth as he sees it.  When answering a direct question
from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to
avoid giving UI to his partner.  When choosing how to
interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict,
I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6225 6285

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm