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

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills (earlier posting):
> 
> 
> 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".
> 

I had no intention of misstating your position. I was trying to point 
out that your position and mine are just as valid. You gladly break 
L75D2. I just as gladly break L73C. You defend your breaking of L75D2 
by pointing out you are following L73C. I defend my breaking of L73C 
by pointing out I am following L75D2.

> 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.
> 

Yes you do. You choose to interpret L75D2 so that you believe you 
don't break it. Your interpretation is just wrong.

> 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).
> 

But then again, that player would be breaking L75D2.

> 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.
> 

There are no deliberate falsehoods in describing my partner's bid in 
exactly the way he intended it. Explaining it in another way (such as 
the systemic way) is being deliberately unhelpful, and gives partner 
UI, in direct violation of L75D2.

About that "falsehood" I have once concocted a bidding sequence in 
which partner, having first misexplained a previous bid, now gives a 
reply to a non-asked question. The opponents wish to know what partner 
shows, but the player only wants to tell them the systemic meaning of 
the bid. Such as "4NT", "asking for aces", "5C", "shows the club 
king.". "But he was giving aces". "No, 4NT asks for club honours". 
"But how many aces does he have?". Do you really think we don't have 
to tell them the meaning of 5C if it were a reply to ace asking?
IMO to tell them 5C shows the CK is: a) a blatant lie, covered up by 
"system", while the player knows quite well how many aces his partner 
has; and b) a blatant attempt to give UI to partner. I actually 
believe this is cheating.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be