[blml] 40B3?

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
> 
>> Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read  
>> the
>> Laws as supporting that position.  That's why an interpretation is  
>> needed.
> 
> But, as Herman has made quite clear, one cannot read the laws as  
> supporting the DWS.  The entire rationale for the DWS is based on the  
> premise that the laws are inconsistent, that a player may be forced  
> to break one law or another, and that it is therefore legitimate when  
> this occurs to choose for oneself which law to break. 

Ehm, Eric, the laws ARE inconsistent. L20F5 cannot be reconciled with 
the MI laws other than through a very distorted reasoning by Grattan.

> The MS reads  
> the laws in such a way that there is no inconsistency, and argues  
> that the MS protocol breaks no laws. 

That is only the reasoning from people who wish to have the DWS seen 
as outlawed. I wonder why that is.

> ISTM that if we are to resolve  
> differences of interpretation by looking to intent, we must prefer  
> the interpretation that assumes a consistent lawbook over one that  
> assumes that the laws are written in such a way that they cannot be  
> followed.
> 

But the mere fact that a player is forced to remain silent about MI on 
one table, and "forced" to reveal the same MI at another is an 
inconsistency that is so great it blinds the people who wish not to 
see it.

You do not prefer a consistent reading over a non-consistent one. You 
prefer the MS, and read the lawbook so that it seems consistent. That 
includes a distorted definition of the verb "indicate". I prefer the 
DWS, and I read the lawbook so that it does not contain 
inconsistencies. That includes, indeed readings such as rendering 
L20F4 invalid (you cannot subsequently realize you have given a wrong 
explanation if you have first given it deliberately)n but I don't see 
that as a problem. Moreover, my reading of the laws is not only 
internally consistent, it is also consistent in its treatment of MI 
versus UI, always ruling that giving UI is worse than giving or 
maintaining MI, something the MS is not always the same.

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