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

[raija]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> raija wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
>> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>
>>
>>> raija wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" 
>>>> <hermandw at skynet.be>
>>>> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> raija wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am a simple soul:   Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and
>>>>> 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple 
>>>>> really.
>>>>
>>>> But that involves lying about the partnership agreement, in the case
>>>> under discussion.  I would not be willing to tell a lie to the
>>>> opponents, when I am obligated to explain my side's agreements. Let the
>>>> chips fall where they may but telling a lie can never be the 
>>>> recommended
>>>> path in legal matters, bridge law or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You'd rather commit a murder than lie to your wife about spending an
>>> evening at a bar (and I don' even mean with another woman)?
>>> Some crimes are worse than lying!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The case under discussion involves no wife and no bars and no murder nor
>> another woman...
>>
>> It involves explanation of partnership agreements. You recommend lying
>> about your agreements, and I recommend telling the truth.  The Law also
>> requires that one tell the truth about one's agreements.
>>
>>
>
> The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner.
> In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that
> means leaving MI in place (L75D2).
>
> Unless you see that there is a dilemma here, there can be no advance.
> You must get it out of your head that MI is the worst crime. It is
> not. UI is a worse crime. And if a situation arises where you have to
> chose between giving MI and UI, the choice is not that one you thought
> of originally.
>
>
> -- 
> Herman DE WAEL
> Antwerpen Belgium
> http://www.hdw.be

Actually, I have no dilemma so in that sense, you are right, there can be no 
advance.
When a situation arises where I have to decide to tell a lie or to tell the 
truth, I will tell the truth.  And I need no Law to guide me on this.