[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 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] (blml) DeWael School 
                   and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>>>
>> +=+  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.
> 
+=+ You misunderstand me, Herman. I am not defending anything.
   I merely observe that it is a violation of an explicit law if a player 
   "when explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply 
   to  an opponent's enquiry" fails to "disclose all special information 
   conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership 
   experience". I have added by way of a rider the WBF statement
   that communication of UI in doing so is not a violation of law.
      This is not something I should permit myself to debate at length,
   being, as an officer, subservient to the WBF's interpretations of 
   the Laws of the game. In the current period I do have an interest, 
   however, in any question of what is desirable in the Laws and 
   particularly in the opinions of colleagues collaborating in the 
   formulation of fresh law.  These I will no doubt soon learn.
                                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+    .