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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ I have refrained from comment because
>I see nothing to be gained by it.  The best place
>to look for guidance is in the statements under
>Example 1 in the footnote to Law 75. I refer
>to the sentence that begins :"This explanation
>is an infraction of Law since ....".
>       I do have a note of this correspondence in
>my little black book, under 'Correct Procedure'.
>                             ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Richard Hills:

The complete sentence in the Law 75 footnote that
Grattan is referring to is:

"This explanation is an infraction of Law, since
East-West are entitled to an accurate description
of the North-South agreement (when this infraction
results in damage to East-West, the Director shall
award an adjusted score)."

Of course, Herman admits that players following
his De Wael School advice are infracting Law 75C
and the Law 75 footnote in order to avoid (what he
believes is) an infraction of Law 75D2.

But the big problem with the De Wael School advice
to a player to lie about their agreements during
the auction, in accordance with the first sentence
of Law 75D2, is that Herman has committed a severe
error of omission in his advice to players by
ignoring the _second_ sentence.

Law 75D2 (second sentence):

>>After calling the Director at the earliest legal
>>opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to
>>be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is
>>to be a defender), the player must inform the
>>opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's
>>explanation was erroneous.

Richard Hills:

Even if one assumes that the De Wael School is
legal, so that it is permitted to violate Law 75C
and the Law 75 footnote during the auction in order
to comply with Law 75D2, such violation is merely
temporary and must be corrected - before the
opening lead if declarer or dummy, or at the end of
play if a defender.

But never has the De Wael School advised players to
merely temporarily lie.  Perhaps this is because of
Herman's idiosyncratically illegal definitions of
"partnership agreement" and "misinformation".

Herman De Wael:

>>>there's nothing you can find in the lawbook that
>>>I haven't already seen.

Richard Hills:

And therein lies the problem; the De Wael School is
a very literal interpretation of the Lawbook, but it
ignores the official reinterpretation of the Lawbook
in the WBF Code of Practice.

Grattan Endicott:

[snip]

>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 ~   +=+


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm