[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Matthias Berghaus wrote:
>   
>>
>> Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation because you do 
>> not agree with it? Not that Grattan has (IMO) made any argument, he 
>> stated how certain laws are to be read (being, as  I  mentioned a couple 
>> of times, member of the body that actually made those laws). But leaving 
>> that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, for that matter) with 
>> an argument have anything to do with its foundation?
>>
>>     
>
> No Mathias, you misunderstand. Your argument, I don't even remember 
> which one it was, was based on the premise that the MS breaks no laws. 
> Since we are still discussing that one, I don't accept that as basis 
> for further argumentation. 

Hmmm. How to make you understand my position? I give it another try. Let 
us say that I invented a game and you want to try it out. There is a 
rule how playing pieces are moved. A die is used, and the piece is moved 
for as many squares as that die shows, but one player uses a die with 
the numbers 1-6, the other one with the numbers 7-12. I asume that you 
woud look for some redeeming feature of the game to even out chances, 
but find none. Now I would grant you every right to find this rule 
stupid and harmful to the game and discuss this with me, maybe 
convincing me to change that rule, but I would not grant you the right 
to proclaim the rule illegal, as it is me who has made the rule, and it 
is my game. Nobody would want to play the game in its present state, but 
it still is the rule. Now we can go on for hours on end about the 
relative merits of ways to play such a game, but as long as I do not 
change that rule the way to play my game remains unaltered.
Now it so happens that the WBF (through its LC and DSC) make the rules, 
and it is their privilege to define the rules, and how they are to be 
read if any interpretation is necessary. They have done so. We can go on 
discussing whether this is the best way, but as long as they do not 
change their pronouncements about certain rules nothing changes. That is 
the basis you have (IMO) to accept.

> And if that argumentation leads you to 
> conclude that the MS is better, 

It does not. I happen to be of that opinion, yes, but not because the 
WBF says so. The WBF makes me play the game according to certain rules, 
whether I agree with their notion how it should be played or not. There 
are certain minor points I happen not to agree with, at least not 
wholeheartedly, but in a text of a given complexity that is to be 
expected. sooner or later. There are even some points where I am not 
completely sure how they want me to play it, but I will find out.

> then I don't accept the validity of 
> that argument, since I don't accept the basis. 

See above. Whether I accept a law my government lays down or not is 
completely irrelevant, it still is the law. I may agree with it or not, 
but that does not change that law. I am free to point out any problems I 
see, but as long as they do not change it.... There are certain persons 
or groups who disagree with the concept of personal property, for 
example highwaymen, bank robbers, confidence tricksters of all sorts, 
and probably a lot more. The fact that they disagree with that concept 
does not change the basic premises of our culture, does it?

> I am quite willing to 
> continue to discuss the basis, but I am not willing to accept your 
> argument here. it is circular reasoning:
> "since the MS is right, it follows that the DWS is wrong". Sorry, but 
> I cannot accept that as a valid argumentation.
>   

But that is not my reasoning at all, and never was. The MS is not 
"right" or "wrong". It is in accordance with the laws. That does not 
make it "right". Certain laws under the Nazi regime in Germany were 
certainly not something I would call "right", but it still was the law. 
No, I do not advocate to accept any law in real life without question, 
but since Bridge is not a matter of life and death ( I know some players 
would disagree....) there is no justification for willingly disregarding 
the laws of the game. Discuss them, by all means, try to get them 
changed if you think something is wrong, but until then we have to abide 
by those rules.