[blml] 40B3?

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
********************************************
"this group just likes to hear themselves talk"
"we have contentious language,  self-styled 'Schools' taking
on unqualified reality by monotonous repetition, guru-like
pronouncements, heels dug in positions regardless of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and out-of-context
usage of words".
" (the above) words reflect my own thought."
"what Herman says is clearly wrong"
"when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible
that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We
deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide
about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way
bridge should be played. And that your (Herman's) very
superior solutions are not valid."
 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
********************************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3?


ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right
way is to consider as permitted everything they permit, and
consider as forbidden everything they forbid.
If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific
situation, then two different courses of action are forbidden.
If this result in a Morton's Fork situation, then Morton (er, the
Lawmakers) should do something about it.

BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges.
"I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only
other possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument.

One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly
a priority. Despite many claims that this priority exists, it isn't
written in TNFLB.
...................................................................................
+=+ The reason the laws do not state a priority is
that the conflict does not exist. A correct understanding
of 'indicate' avoids the fallacious argument that Herman
bases on a poor grasp of the English. Whether we will
issue a clarification is a moot point - certain of my
colleagues regard the source of the disagreement with
the official view as too inconsequential to call for a
response.  However, to quote one of us who does not
contribute here, the view we share is that "what Herman
says is clearly wrong"  The fact is that in complying with
the requirement to explain his partner's call correctly a
player may reveal incidentally that in his view his partner
has misexplained a prior call. In doing so he is not acting
with purpose to draw attention to this and there is no
violation of Law 20F5(a). Add this, my opinion, to the
views of five DSC colleagues quoted at the head of this
message.
      As an aside, I have evidence also of opinions in the
European Bridge League Laws Committee that Herman
is wrong - potentially a unanimous opinion. So a helpful
pronouncement soon in Zone 1 is well within the bounds
of possibility. (Who knows if perhaps we will meet in
Pau? If so, in what is a small committee, decisions are
come by fairly readily.)
                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+