[blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy?



> 
> Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and 
> Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a 
> mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And 
> that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question?
> 

[broken record] 

The Lawmakers have made it clear what the priorities are.

L20F5:  "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not 
correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner

that a mistake has been made."  

Note that L20F is a "may not" imperative. 

Note also that L20F4 reads:  "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was

erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The

Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4."

L72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there

is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."

And L73C:  "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from

his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation,

gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or

hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must

carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized

information."

and a few others, but I'm short on time. Note the use of the word "must".

Then go read the "Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge".  The "must" imperatives of L20F4, L72, and L73 are "must" imperatives, as defined by the Lawmakers. The Lawmakers then state that the "must imperative is the strongest word of all.  Even stronger than the L20 "may not" imperative that you like to hide behind.

There is no ambiguity here.  You must follow the "must" imperatives as directed by Law.  Always. Even if you see a "may not" imperative that you perceive to be in conflict, that's no excuse, since "may not" is a weaker imperative than "must". The "must" imperatives override it. Not all Laws are created equal, and the Lawmakers have seen fit to tell us which are the stronger imperatives.

Hirsch

[/broken record]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080115/827afc96/attachment.htm