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

[Herman De Wael]

Sven Pran wrote:
>> 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. 
> 

But the advice is not illegal!
This is circular reasoning:

Herman is wrong, therefore the advice is illegal, therefore Herman is 
wrong.

> 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).
> 

L73B1, L75D2

But of course if you choose to disregard laws that do not fit your 
preconceived notions, then you are right, there are no laws that say 
"thou shalt not give UI".

> Regards Sven
> 

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html