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

[Herman De Wael]

raija wrote:
> ----- 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.
> 

The problem with that attitude is that you take no heed to laws which
might be more important than speaking "the truth". Giving UI for instance.

And another problem is that "the truth" is so very badly defined. What
you tell them may be the truth in the sense that it is the systemic
meaning, but what I tell them is the truth in the sense that it is the
actual meaning of what my partner holds. In that sense, my response is
much more helpful than yours. In fact, you say something untrue, and
then cry high and mightily that it is "the truth".

Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors.
Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how
many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"?
OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond
preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in
another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they
will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that 
information. So you will also say "1 ace".
What have you now said, all in all
1-"He has 1 ace" (true)
2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true)
3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true)

All these things are true. But then again, I have also said only true 
things (1-).
So while you have spoken the truth, so have I. You have said a bit 
more, but the things you have said are:
-information they are not entitled to (2-) and which you are allowed 
to keep to yourself
-unauthorized information (2-) to your partner, which L73B1 forbids 
you to utter
-mention that he has misexplained (2-) which L75D2 forbids you to utter
-totally irrelevant (3-)

So don't talk about "truth", will you?
-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be