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

[Herman De Wael]

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 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?+=+

yes, see my webpages that retell the discussion first time around. It 
started in April 1998.

http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html

>> 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 ~   +=+
> 

Correct Grattan, but what you are doing now is defending the legality 
of the Majority School, not explaining the illegality of the dWs.
I have never said that a person who wishes to follow the advice of 
Richard et.al. is acting illegally, I am defending the actions of a 
player who follows my advice.
And just as the one player is excused for giving UI, by his wish not 
to give MI, so a player should be excused for giving MI, by his wish 
not to give UI.

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