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

[Herman De Wael]

Todd M. Zimnoch wrote:
> Herman De Wael wrote:
>> The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner.
> 
> I don't believe it does.  It says you may not give UI to 
> partner.  It does not say you must not give UI to your 
> partner.  However, you must disclose your system agreements.
> 
>> In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that 
>> means leaving MI in place (L75D2).
> 
> Your obligation to correctly disclose your system is stated 
> with the word "must" (L75A).  All of the obligations to not 
> transmit UI that you reference use the words "may not" 
> (L75D2) or "shall not" (L73B1).
> 
> Restated, perhaps too simplistically, you do not have 
> permission to transmit UI, however, in some circumstances 
> you are under obligation to do so.  That obligation is 
> stronger than the injunction against.
> 

Your analysis is perfect, Todd, until the last sentence. You claim 
that the obligation is stronger than the injunction. Would you care to 
prove that statement?

You correctly take the words "shall not" in L73B1. A very strong 
injunction. You also read "may not" in L75D2, to which I would like to 
add "in any manner". A very strong injunction too.
But you find the word "must" in L75A. When I read that law, I see a 
passive structure. "the system MUST be available". It does not say 
"the player MUST explain the system". As such, I do not believe there 
is as strong an obligation on the player to explain the system. After 
all, partner has not followed the system, so the actual system is 
about as relevant as "Sydney is the capital of Australia" (with excuse 
to Melbourners).

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