[blml] Réf. : Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> Sent: 4. oktober 2007 22:29
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blml] Réf. : Re: The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick
> 
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote:
> 
> >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael [snipped]
> >
> > In your comment to Eric Landau you wrote: "Ehmm... Law number please?"
> 
> Did he?  I guess I missed it, as I have stopped reading Herman's posts.

Yes, you had written:

> Herman is exactly right here!  When "such a 'guess' is based on much
> more than mere guesswork... *that much more* [empahsis mine] needs to  
> be divulged.
> 
> But while that may well "boil[] down to telling them the guess" in
> nearly every case, the laws *require* you to divulge "the much more"  
> while *forbidding* you from divulging "the guess".

End quote

> I am prepared to argue with Herman about the "De Wael school"
> prescription for disclosing non-agreements, or about the ethics of
> the undisclosed "Herman 1H bid", until, as they say, the cows come
> home.  I will even confess to perhaps having played some part in
> extending some of these discussions interminably when there seems to
> be nothing more to be said.  One should note, however, that those
> arguments, overwrought though they may sometimes be, are about bridge
> laws, which is our chosen subject.
> 
> This is the internet.  Insults happen.  We may not like the general
> lack of civility we find on the net, but we either live with it or
> leave.  But there is one line we do not cross.  AFAIC, Herman crossed
> that line this morning when I received a post in which he requested
> my help "to get this poster expelled".  Those were not insults; they
> were threats.  "Apologize or face the consequences"?!  Sorry, Herman,
> welcome to my killfile (you're all by yourself there).
> 
> Meanwhile, if someone cares and wants to tell me which of my posts
> was being referred to, I'll see what I can do for a law number.


Well, I have skipped most of this thread, but when I happened to notice the
argument that the director is free to give illegal advices I couldn't help
objecting. 

Also there is a very common misunderstanding that giving UI is illegal and I
notice with interest that Herman apparently takes that for a fact without
even bothering to substantiate it with a law reference (which of course is
impossible to find).

Regards Sven