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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills (earlier posting):

[big snip]

>>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.

Roger Pewick:

>Not withstanding the meaning of the passages of law, it was my
>understanding that the words of each passage stand independent
>of the rest, and are applied so without regard to context [as
>has been demonstrated by the rebuttal of my assertions that
>context is relevant].

Richard Hills (current posting):

Umm.  Yes the 1997 Lawbook is poorly and ambiguously written,
and yes the Lawbook itself does not contain internal rules for
its interpretation, and yes Edgar Kaplan allegedly said, "If
you do not like what a Law says, search for another one".

But.....

There are two sensible rules for resolving paradoxes in the
Lawbook.  Kojak's First Rule states that, "A specific Law is an
over-riding exception to a more general Law."  And for special
cases where Kojak's First Rule does not apply, such as the
conflict between the two equally specific Laws 75C and 75D2,
then there is Kojak's Second Rule, which states that, "When in
doubt deciding which tree of a Law to obey, a ruling should be
consistent with the overall forest of the Lawbook."

Richard Hills (earlier posting):

>>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.

Herman De Wael:

>When interpreting L75D2, I prefer to do this the way it is
>written.
>
>When interpreting L75D2, Richard interprets "not in any
>manner" as "I choose to inform my partner when I wish".

Richard Hills (current posting):

A "straw man" argument, misstating my position for the purposes
of drama and poetic license.  I interpret "not in any manner"
in accordance with its originally intended meaning "don't make
faces when pard misexplains".  Likewise, "when I wish" does
not have the same meaning as "when required by Law 75C to
disclose our partnership agreement".

Herman De Wael:

>Just face it Richard, one of two laws is going to get broken.
>I chose mine, you chose yours. Let's leave it at that.

Richard Hills (current posting):

In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws.

No, it is only by a sea-lawyer non-contextual trees-not-forest
De Wael School interpretation that Herman has chosen one of two
equally illegal interpretations of Law.  Even if Herman argues
that Kojak's First Rule applies to the De Wael School, by
hypothetically choosing to argue that Law 75D is a more
specific Law than Law 75C, this hypothetical argument would
fail, since a deliberately false De Wael School explanation is
a clear infraction of Law 75D1 (which requires the Director to
be summoned immediately when a player realises that his own
explanation was erroneous or incomplete).

And I do not resile from my opinion that Herman's ethics are
idiosyncratic, since by his own admission his choice to adopt
the De Wael School is optional, and the deliberate falsehoods
which are a consequence of the De Wael School are contrary to
the generally accepted nature of the game of bridge.


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