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

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 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."

It has become difficult to grasp the direction of thinking in this thread. 
I leave with this posit-



Say that situation X exists.  And passage A of the Law requires that when 
situation X exists that the  player is to be hung by the ankles; while in 
addition there is passage B that requires that when situation X exists that 
the player is to be hung by an ankle and a wrist.  As such I read that the 
law requires that when situation X exists then in order to satisfy the law 
then the player must be hung by both ankles and that the player must be hung 
by an ankle and a wrist.



And for the sake of hypothesis, consider additionally that there is passage 
C that requires when situation X exists then the player is to not be hung 
[set free].  As for satisfying the law under that premise- it is a foolish 
man that allows himself to be the judge.






> 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.

I am interested in having an enumeration as to what is the generally 
accepted nature of the game of bridge.

regards
roger pewick

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