[blml] 40B3?

[Herman De Wael]

richard willey wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
> 
>> Not really. What I'm trying to say is that, even if I would admit to
>> it being because of DWS considerations, at two other tables there will
>> be two unknown players. One of them would do it because of a genuine
>> belief that he had misbid, the other could be an unknown DWS adept.
>> How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be
>> forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others?
> 
> As I have noted in the past, I don't really care much whether the law
> of the land is based on the mainstream interpretation or the DWS
> interpretation.  Tell me what I'm supposed to do and I will happily
> follow the rules.
> 

At present, the law of the land is what we know it to be. The DWS is 
not outlawed as such, and I will be subject to MI rulings (but no UI 
ones).

> What does concern me greatly is that the laws are consistent.  I
> consider a situation where one group of players follows the mainstream
> school while another group of players follows the DWS highly
> problematic.  This can't lead to anything good...
> 

I don't see why not. I act like this, because I want to. Someone else 
acts like that, because he thinks that is right. I will face a MI 
ruling, he will face a UI ruling. No problems there.

> I think that it is useful to distinquish between academic debate
> regarding the DWS and practical application of the DWS.  Here once
> again, I couldn't care less if Herman enjoys ivory tower arguments
> regarding the DWS since these don't have any bearing on the way that
> the game is played.
> 

Not until I sit down and it happens, and I do it.

> This is very different from real world application of the DWS.  Here
> we have a deliberate attempt to fork the regulatory structure.  I find
> this type of behaviour problematic when it comes from players.
> However, Herman is not a mere "player".  Herman is an experienced
> director who should known better.  He can not claim ignorance.
> Rather, he is making a deliberate and concious decision to flaunt due
> process and place his own personal opinons ahead of precedent.
> 

"a deliberate attempt to fork the regulatory structure" - even if I 
understood what that meant, I don't see why that would matter. I do my 
actions, and I face the ruling about it. That ruling will be exactly 
the same as some other bloke who takes the same action, because he 
believes that his partner is right about the system.

> Moreover, Herman repeatedly behaves in this same manner.  Recall
> earlier discussions regarding the Herman 1H opening where Herman
> openly stated that he refuses to provide the local regulatory
> authorities with a description of his actions because he fears that -
> in their ignorance - they would rule against him...
> 

Please don't drag up old cows - we're discussing something important here.

> The difference between Herman and the unknown DWS adept is the amount
> of information that we have regarding intent.
> 

Precisely my point. You would rule against me, but not against someone 
else who might have had the same intent. You brought up the H1H, a 
similar case. You would rule against me, because I have been honest 
and admitted to my habits on my SC, but not against someone else, who 
may have done it just as many times, but failed to write it on his SC.

And I was not talking about the present situation, but about some 
future one, in which the DWS as such would be outlawed. If under that 
law you would rule against me - even more heavily than simply on the 
given MI - but not against someone else, because you know my 
intentions but not his, that is not a good law change.

Law 20F6: if the player is called De Wael, give him 90IMPs penalty.
(I'll tell my sister - maybe she won't be as keen about taking up 
bridge then)

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