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

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Richard,

thanks for your interesting reply. Allow me to go through it.

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 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.
> 

OK, maybe they should. But they haven't. And I would hate it if all 
100 National Authorities would have to make such an interpretation, 
with the added possibility that neighbouring organisations would issue 
different interpretations. Maybe the WBFLC ought to give such an 
interpretation. Which is why I gave them the hint to do that 
interpretation my way.

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

No, only a robot would freeze if the laws were handed to it too 
strictly ("Runaround" if that tells you anything - I think it does).

> 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".**
> 

That would be the interpretation I would prefer to see.

> 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."
> 

You have read five reasons why such an interpretation would be 
disastroud (IMO).

> 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.
> 

"generally accepted" is, you must agree, a very bad reason for 
argueing that something is true - "E per si muove".

> 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. :)]
> 

I prefer to follow the strength of my own convictions.

> 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.
> 

Well, I did the same, but I chose a different law that needed 
reinterpretation.

> 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.
> 

Indeed this is also an oversight, but it only leads to a problem for 
the director, not for the player.

> 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.
> 

Well, yes, so what is the WBF waiting for to correct this particular 
oversight?

> 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.
> 

Thank you. At least you recognise that a different interpretation is 
possible.

> 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.
> 

And there you go wrong, IMO. The player will never ask a ruling on his 
choice of actions. He will only ask a ruling on the actions he chose. 
If the player chose the actions that I recommend, then you will give 
him a MI ruling, and you won't be needing to give an UI ruling. My 
ruling would be exactly the same. OTOH, if the player chooses to 
follow your advice rather than mine, I (as TD called to the table) 
would give the necessary UI ruling. You would give the exact same 
ruling at that table. Nowhere is there need to give a L81C5 ruling. 
The player has broken a law (either the one or the other) and it is 
not up to the TD to rule on his choice, only on his actions.

> 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!
> 
> :-)
> 

But that is simply not true. The player is forced to break one law or 
another, and no queen of hearts can tell him that he shall lose his 
head if he breaks the wrong one.

> 
> Best wishes
> 

Thanks for the reply, but you still have not seen the light.
Maybe I should stop trying.
You still have not told me, Richard, why my actions are less legal 
than yours. You have reiterated "things that everyone knows". Well, 
not everyone knows them, and even if everyone minus one knows them, 
that does not mean they are right. I happen to believe (with 
arguments) that they are wrong, but if you refuse to listen to the 
arguments and simply continue to state that they are right, then there 
is no hope for progress.

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