[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC

[Herman De Wael]

Roger Pewick wrote something that prompted me to alter the title of 
this thread.

> 
> Herman,
> 
> Exceptional eloquence.  Plain talk is refreshing.  Unfortunately <sigh>, 
> I don't feel myself literate in the dWS to suggest that I have an 
> opinion as to whether it is the right target. 

That is strange Roger. You seem like someone who knows their laws. It 
should be possible to form an opinion on this one.

> Of one strong opinion I do 
> have is that [a] the LC has got it wrong [particularly in the way you 
> assert] 

The WBF LC have never tackled this problem (to my knowledge).

> and [b] they intend to not correct it [I expect the LC to change 
> it, but not correct it] as evidenced by the LC's mission [write the law 
> so that all the Zones agree to them] specified by Wignall five years ago 
> as well as by Adam's recent assessment that the Laws merely be tweaked 
> and Kojak's assertion that they work fine.
> 

I also believe the laws work just fine. I do not think that there is a 
dilemma here, and I have no qualms, as a player, of acting in the 
manner I suggest. I will not rule specifically against players who 
take the opposite route, but I believe that the normal UI ruling they 
will receive is so severe that they will learn to act differently in 
future.

As to the WBFLC altering the laws (presumably away from the dWS 
interpretation), I would advise them not to do so. I have formulated 
four different reasons why it would be a mistake to write the anti-DWS 
into regulations. Permit me to make this post much too long by 
enumerating them:

1) such a regulation would not be consistent with the previous 
decision that a player should remain quiet when his partner misexplains;
2) such a regulation would not solve the problem of a player who hears 
his partner explain different than what he intended, and who now has 
no clue as to what his system really is;
3) such a regulation would require the TD to become a mind-reader, 
since a player could simply state that he became certain that his 
partner was right, so he continued the (wrong) explanation;
4) such a regulation would be impossible to give an adjustment under: 
what do you award to a pair who have refused to give UI, proving along 
the way that the correct action was taken without UI? Do you say to 
them "you should have given UI, so we shall now rule that with the UI 
your partner would not have taken the action that was suggested by UI 
that he never received" (and if you think that sentence is too long, 
try rephrasing it yourself and see what unbelievable tangles such a 
regulation would create)

> regards
> roger pewick
> 


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