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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael (current posting):

>>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.

[snip]

>>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.

Richard Hills ("asked jesting Pilate" thread):

>"What is Truth?" was an important question 2000
>years ago.
>
>It is still an important question in bridge, given
>that Truth is the basis of the requirement to
>disclose mandated by Law 75.
>
>David Burn seems to be asserting that Truth is
>relative and contextual.  However, Law 75 as a
>whole seems to me to be to be based on the
>philosophy that Truth is an absolute.
>
>It seems to me that the logical basis of the
>footnote to Law 75 is that:
>
>* If a partnership has agreed that it is Truth
>  that a particular call has a defined partnership
>  meaning of X;
>* If one or both members of the partnership
>  have temporarily forgotten the Truth, and
>  assume that the call has a meaning of Y;
>* Then, according to the footnote to Law 75, the
>  Truth that must be disclosed is still X.

Herman De Wael ("asked jesting Pilate" thread):

What I find abhorring in all these cases is not
that you seem to be saying that X is True, but that
you are also saying that Y is false.  While all the
time Y is actually what partner has.

N:"4NT"
E:"?"
S:"asking for minors"
S:"5Di"
W:"?"
N:"one ace" or "better diamonds than clubs"

While systemically "one ace" may be True, in reality
"better diamonds" is true. So why all this writing
about "better diamonds" being False?

What is Truth, indeed?

Richard Hills:

>It is Truth that the footnote to Law 75 states:
>
>...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-
>West did receive an accurate description of the
>North-South agreement; they have no claim to an
>accurate description of the North-South hands...


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