[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws -
General Obligation on Contestants):

"Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict
accordance with the Laws."

Herman De Wael (2007):

[snip]

>Read the summary of the posts that were sent to this
>list in 1998
>(http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html)
>and write me a detailed summary of the laws as you read
>them. Maybe then we can have a serious discussion. Until
>then, I'm just gonna stop.

Herman De Wael (1998):

>I think we may safely say that at least on this issue,
>David Stevenson is in a minority position. Laws 75C and
>75D2 do contradict one another, and a player in these
>circumstances shall be forced to break one of them.

Richard Hills (2007):

No, I would argue that in these circumstances a National
Authority should reinterpret either Law 75C or Law 75D2.

It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in
strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break
a Law.

Either the National Authority should interpret Law 75C
as reading:

"When explaining the significance of partner’s call or
play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a
player shall disclose all special information conveyed to
him through partnership agreement or partnership
experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn
from his general knowledge and experience.  **But, as an
over-riding exception to this Law, a player shall lie
about their partnership agreements if required by the Law
75D2 criterion to not "indicate in any manner that a
mistake has been made".**

Or the National Authority should interpret Law 75D2 as
reading:

"A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation
may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may
he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a
defender may not correct the error until play ends.
**But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a
player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.**
After calling the Director at the earliest legal
opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be
declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a
defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in
his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous."

Herman De Wael (1998):

>This leads us to a discussion on which of the Laws, 75C
>or 75D2, is the strongest.

Jesper Dybdal (1998):

>However, it is generally accepted that your duty to
>inform the opponents takes precedence over your duty to
>not give partner UI. The UI is partner's problem, and
>that is the price your partner must pay for having
>forgotten his system. If you do not answer according to
>your agreements, you are making it the opponents'
>problem, which is much worse. I agree that the law book
>does not say that L75D2 is less important than L75C. But
>it seems obvious to me that it should be, and I believe
>it is generally accepted that it is.

Grant Sterling (1998):

>When given a choice between explicitly violating a law
>and violating another law only under an obviously
>minority reading of an ambiguous clause, I would prefer
>to violate the latter [even if I thought my reading of it
>was the correct one. :)]

Jeremy Rickard (1998):

>When two laws contradict each other, my first reaction is
>not to think "Oh, the lawmakers decided to force me to be
>a criminal!", but to think "Oh, maybe I misunderstood one
>of the laws." In this case, the most obvious way of
>interpreting the two laws so as not to lead to a
>contradiction seems to me to be the one that I (and most
>other contributors) have chosen.

Herman De Wael (1998):

>However, he forgets there is a third option :
>
>We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite
>considerable effort, are not perfect.
>
>It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers
>never visualised this occurrence, where in a particular
>situation a player is faced with the dilemma that he must
>break one Law or the other.
>
>So the Lawmakers never intended a player to become a
>criminal as you put it.
>
>So we are still with this dilemma.

Richard Hills (2007):

A clearer example of a non-visualisation of circumstance
is when declarer's RHO leads, declarer revokes, declarer's
LHO revokes, and then both declarer and LHO discover their
two revokes before either revoke is established.

This is such an obscure circumstance that I know of only
one case in which it has occurred at the table.  The
problem is that Law 62B1 says that LHO's card is a penalty
card, but Law 62C1 says that LHO's card is not a penalty
card.

Herman De Wael (1998):

>I believe we should decide upon which law to break, not
>by reinterpreting one of the laws so that it ends up not
>being broken, but by ranking the laws as to severity.

Richard Hills (2007):

Herman forgets the possibility of a fourth option; a
drafting error by the creators of the 1997 Lawbook.  A
clearer example of a drafting error is in Law 71C.  The
preamble of Law 71C states:

"within the correction period established in accordance
with Law 79C..."

but the final sentence of Law 71C states:

"Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent
board, or until the round ends..."

In this Law 71C case, however, the WBF LC has issued an
interpretation stating that the relevant correction
period is the one stated in the Law 71C preamble.

Herman De Wael (1998):

>Many other posters have commented on this issue, but they
>mostly give their personal preference without giving
>detailed account as to why they think their vision should
>necessarily be the correct one.

Richard Hills (2007):

I agree that my Law 81C5 interpretation of Law 75D2 -

**But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a
player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.**

- is not necessarily _permanently_ the correct one.  At
any time the opposite interpretation could be adopted by
the ABF National Authority, or by the WBF Laws Committee.

But, until such time as my interpretation is over-ruled by
a higher tribunal, players participating in walk-in pairs I
direct must _necessarily_ abide by my Law 81C5 ruling.

Herman De Wael (1998):

>Let me conclude by saying that it would not be incorrect
>for a player to choose to follow either Law, and break the
>other one.

Richard Hills (2007):

Now _that_ part of Herman's philosophy I find necessarily
absurd.

Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll (1832-1898):

>>Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one
>>can't believe impossible things."
>>
>>"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the
>>Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-
>>hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six
>>impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl
>>again!'

Richard Hills (2007):

It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in
strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break
a Law.  There goes the shawl again!

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

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