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

[raija]

(snipped earlier exchanges)
Raija writes:
>> 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.
>>
>

Herman writes:
> 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".

*** I will accept the consequences when my side has made an error; typically 
there is cost of some type.   Crying high and mightily is not my style, 
please do attribute to me words or actions that I have not said/done,  nor 
will.


>
> 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)

**** There is no need to exercise one's right to ask a question every time 
it is one's turn to bid.   The opponents might be trying to stir the pot a 
little by their questions, forcing our side into UI when I give a true 
answer; or MI, when you give a false answer. So be it, they got their fun in 
seeing opponents in deeper trouble and they had the legal right for that 
entertainment...


>
> 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?

***If I am asked what the meaning of a call is and I know it, I will NOT 
give a false answer.  The wheels are off due to our side's forget or 
misunderstanding.  Trying to further complicate it with intentionally false 
information about our agreements, will not cure the problem.  Telling the 
truth will not cure the problem either.  However, being obligated to give 
false information about one's agreements because "the laws require you tell 
a lie" seems preposterous to me.

I've said my piece and will follow this thread from the sidelines from now 
on.

Raija