[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
************************************
"In this imperfect world we have no
guarantee of justice. The nearest 
we have contrived is the perception 
of justice among our peers. This is 
the foundation of the jury and we 
should defend it as powerfully as 
we may."
 -----------------------------------------------
[Nigel]
"This example is based on a real case where the
> director ruled against the slam-bidders and the
> appeals committee condemned their appeal.
> Paradoxically, I believe that had they asked the
> putative offenders, they would both agree with me
> that they should have been ruled against."
<
[Grattan]
+=+ Surely not so. A pair of this mind must have 
indicated as much to the Director.
       Of course, when writing satire an author has 
licence to bend facts slightly to his purpose. Does 
one detect just the ickle-bittiest suspicion of bile 
in Nigel's concoction? +=+
 ..................................................................
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <guthrie at ntlworld.com>
Cc: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Nigel Guthrie:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >[D] Concealed understandings: Your notes describe
> >the double of a club splinter as asking for a
> >diamond lead. You are vulnerable against not. RHO
> >opens 1S, LHO splinters 4C and partner doubles.
> >You don't alert but when opponents reach a slam,
> >you find the killing diamond lead. You and partner
> >both claim that double of 4C just shows clubs.
> >
> >This example is based on a real case where the
> >director ruled against the slam-bidders and the
> >appeals committee condemned their appeal.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Please cite identifying details of the real case
> concerned.  My elephantine memory suggests that
> the real case was an ACBL appeal written up in a
> recent ACBL casebook, but that your summary either
> inadvertently or perhaps deliberately ("based on")
> distorted what actually happened in the real case.
> 
> And, of course, in non-distorted real bridge it is
> fully illegal, not borderline illegal, to lie
> about your partnership agreements.
>