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

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
**********************
" Man does not live by words alone,
despite the fact that he sometimes 
has to eat them."   {Adlai Stevenson}                  
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject:  Re: DeWael School and WBFLC 
                               [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
<
> I've been having these discussions for 10 years already 
>
+=+ Is it only ten years?+=+
> 
> Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating 
> something (deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous 
> answer was wrong. You have just cited the single most 
> important article that supports my claim!
> 
+=+  In my view the crux of the matter is that Herman argues 
contrary to the practice of Laws Committees and Appeals 
Committees which allow that it is lawful to convey UI in the 
course of compliance with law - and that the illegality in such 
circumstances lies in the subsequent use by the partner of that 
UI.  I recognize that Herman believes his approach is superior, 
but I have failed to pick up his quotation of the actual Law 
that justifies not his argument but his practice (if it be so) of 
overriding their greater authority. 
        The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, 
makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not
commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that 
information that is a breach of the laws".  There is no *design* 
to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws 
require him to answer.
                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+