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

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>   
>> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
>> [following address discontinued:
>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
>> *******************************
>> "Judge not the play before the play be done"
>>                      [Sir John Davies 1569-1626]
>>  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>     
>> +=+  Herman does have respect in fields outside of
>> bridge. He is respected also as a player of some ability.
>> It is in relation to bridge law that Herman has self-destructed
>> his credibility by his dogmatic refusal to accept that the law
>>     
>
> Dogmatic?
> Who's being dogmatic here?
>   

Well, you are. You adhere to the dogma that the WBF, especially the LC 
and DSC has to listen to you (or to me, for that matter). They don't, 
because it is not how the WBF is set up. The NBOs and the Zones arethe 
ones to talk to the WBF. I am not even sure whether any of us is indeed 
a member of the WBF. What I am sure of is that I am not a member of the 
German Bridge Federation. No player in Germany is. I am a member of a 
club, and that club is a member of DBV, but I, the individual sitting at 
this keyboard, am not a member. So there are several things where my 
federation does not have to listen to me. Oh, they do, usually, but in 
principle I have to go through my club to do certain things, except 
where the federation lets me do it on an individual basis, or asks my 
opinion.

> I write whole books on the subject, but the powers that be dismiss all 
> that with a simple - "we wrote the law so we ought to know how it goes".
>   

Well, who else shoud know? I do not think that there has been a case in 
human history (except in egend, maybe) where some person or individual 
wrote a law or regulation and then asked someone to interpret it for 
them. Feel free to write that book, but they do not have to read it. 
People like Ton and Grattan probably will, but not because they have to.

> Besides, I'm way beyond the current laws at the moment. I'm talking 
> about how the laws would best be.
>
> I think the word dogmatic refers to people who are seeing only one 
> position, believing it beyond much reason and insight.
>   

So do I.

> But let's put this to rest for the moment. I'm preparing a full 
> dossier which, I hope, will be seen with a bit less "dogma" than I'm 
> getting from Grattan and Ton at the moment.
>
>   
>> is the law when he has been told repeatedly what the law is
>> by those with authority in the subject.  It is a sad fact that,
>> among the EBL Laws Committee members for example,
>> the regard for his opinions in matters of bridge law is just
>> now at a very low ebb.
>>                                 ~ Grattan ~ +=+
>>
>>     
>
> That is indead a sad fact. I find the discussion stimulating, and am 
> willing to accept counterargument and even reasoned conclusion. I am 
> not seeing any of that from the EBL or WBF at the moment.
>
>   

That is because (IMO) you do not "accept" the reason behind it. You 
cannot see what you refuse to see.