[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Matthias Berghaus wrote:
>   
>>
>> I hold my trap shut, because that is what the laws say. I am not allowed 
>> to correct MI before play ends if I am a defender. WTP?
>>
>>     
>
> WTP? TP is that you find this normal, but it is not. You say that not 
> giving MI is the prime duty, yet you happily keep quiet because some 
> law tells you to.

Hello?
Earth to orbit?
Anybody out there?

Of course I do what the law says, what else is there? Bridge is a game 
governed by laws, not by what I think is just, fair, good (you may add 
any other description that comes to your mind). The law tells me what is 
right in the game of Bridge, so I follow that law.

What else????

I cannot follow the laws of American Football while playing Bridge, nor 
can I follow my personal set of beliefs how the rules should be. I have 
to follow the rules as laid out by the body governing those laws. I can 
spend hours on end discussing whether these laws are IMO "right" or 
"wrong", but that does not change those rules. In order to change the 
rules I have to convince the people who make those laws. My 
"interpretation" of those laws does not change them, nor the way I 
"choose to read" them. The only thing that counts is how the rule is 
_meant_ to be read, and if this is in doubt I have to ask for guidance 
from the governing body. If I don`t like their answer, well, that`s too 
bad for me, isn`t it?
The WBFLC told us in the Code of Practice that giving UI through a 
correct explanation of the system is not an infraction (and Grattan and 
Ton, being members of that body told us again...and again), while the 
use of that UI is, of course, an infraction. Along comes Herman who 
"chooses to read it differently, and it does not apply, anyway" 
(paraphrase mine, not an exact quote). This is not a seminar in literary 
criticism. This is the Laws of Bridge. You may discuss this as long as 
you want, you may criticize it, you may try to point out ways to do it 
better, no problem. But you try to get people to break those laws, and 
that is simply not acceptable. We can always discuss whether a ruke is 
good or not, but if we are told from people with the authority to tell 
us (the WBFLC, in case you forgot) how a law is to be read, then all 
discussion is limited to what the law should look like instead of its 
present form, if we should happen to disagree with the way we are told 
to read it..

>  And then 2 minutes later, when that same law still 
> applies, you say that you will avoid giving MI because that is the 
> prime duty!
>   

Herman, this is too much. Do not put words in my mouth I have not said 
or written. I have never, ever told anyone what his/her prime duty in 
the game of Bridge is, because I happen to believe that there isn`t  any 
"prime" duty in Bridge. There are a lot of duties, sometimes there is 
danger of conflict, sometimes not. By explaining after MI from partner I 
do not have to choose between UI and MI, I have to choose between 
following the law and not following it. The WBFLC has told me how to 
follow the law. If this were a game invented by Herman de Wael I would 
follow the rules as laid down by Herman, because it is Herman`s game. 
But I happen to play the WBF`s game,  so I follow the rules laid down by 
them.

> And you don't even for a moment flinch at the inconsistency of it all!
>   

Herman, I promise to flinch the very second I see an inconsistency. In 
explaining my system I commit no infraction, in misexplaining it I do 
(no, it is not who says so, it is the guys who made the rules). What 
could be simpler than that. But after this long discussion I fear that 
you have built a mindset for you about this "problem" which does no 
longer let you discuss this in an emotionless way. Being a couple of 
hundred miles away from you, and only having the guidance from your 
messages I may well be wrong, but I have been wrong before. In fact I 
would be glad if I were wrong again.

It is a valid point of view to think that temporary MI is worse than UI 
(under the premise that the MI is cleared up at the first legal 
opportunity, and the UI is not used). I happen to disagree, but that 
does not make your point of view invalid. It so happens that I, through 
no design of mine, happen to share the view of the current WBFLC. If you 
had convinced them we would have switche sides. Maybe you manage to 
convince them or their successors, the future will tell. But I doubt it.

> That's the Problem!
>
>
>