[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Brian]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:55:01 +0200
Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:

 
> How can an advice be illegal - I can advice whatever I want, can't I? 

I think "illegal" in this instance is shorthand for "is contrary to the
laws of bridge". 

> People can follow my advice or not, can they not? And their actions 
> will be judged illegal or not - but my advice cannot be illegal. 

OK, let's try an extreme example. Let's say that I suggested to
someone that they should help their partner select a lead by orienting
their pen or pencil in a particular direction. 

Would you say that this advice was illegal, or would you say that
giving the advice was legal, but following it was illegal? 

I would suggest to you that the majority of people on this list would
go with the first option, and describe the advice itself as illegal.
You can argue that it would be technically incorrect, and you might
well have a case, but everybody would understand what was meant. 

> As
> to my ruling, that is per definition legal, since it will be given by
> a qualified director. The ruling may be changed by an AC, but that
> does not make the ruling illegal.

Well, I'll drop the extreme example here. Hasn't it been clearly
decided that a "Reveley ruling" is illegal, even if it's given by a
qualified director? Same shorthand as above...

> Yet Richard can call me illegal and unlawful without anyone objecting?
> 

Maybe it's because they take the same view of what Richard means as I
do - that Richard thinks your advice and your ruling would be in
conflict with the laws of bridge as they should be interpreted - and
that everyone else agrees with Richard. 


Brian. 


-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071004/b50622f4/attachment.pgp