[blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>rewriting what is a somewhat corrupt 1997 Lawbook.

Mike Amos:

>I can understand that you might think the law book
>corrupted but not how it could be corrupt

Richard Hills:

A classic example of an interpretation of the Lawbook
corrupting, and an absolute interpretation of the
Lawbook corrupting absolutely is Law 73C.

Despite repeated "beware of the leopard" advice on how
Law 73C should be interpreted, luminaries such as Jeff
Rubens and Ron Klinger instead choose to interpret Law
73C as its words are written.

That is, Rubens and Klinger logically argue that after
unauthorised information you "should" make the call
that you would have normally made, rather than make
the call that the Director "should" subsequently rule
is legal.

In my opinion, any interpretation of Law (as, for
example, the De Wael School) which advocates taking
an arguably illegal action has a corrosively corrupt
effect on the game of bridge.

The good news is that the 2008 Lawbook will have had
all traces of the 1997 Lawbook's corruption totally
expunged.  Only 387 days to wait.

:-)


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for