[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> John (MadDog) Probst:
>
>>>Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen
>>>card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen
>>>card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to
>>>establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't.
>
> Good Queen Bess:
>
>>I have no desire to make windows into men's souls.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> It is easier for TDs to enforce objective Laws,
> rather than them trying to enforce subjective
> "window" Laws.
>
> Hence the Law 49 criterion "could have seen" rather
> than "did see" and the Law 73F2 criterion "could
> have known" rather than "did know".
>
> Another disadvantage of "window" Laws is that the
> "Probst cheats" who can convincingly lie about
> their intent gain a competitive advantage over
> honest players.

I like this definition of the "intent" laws. "window laws"
It is indeed for this reason that I don't like asking for intent.
My wife is honest and would tell me her intent;
I (the probst cheat) would lie and tell her the answer most favourable to 
me.
That is blatantly unfair. Curiously L25A rulings are easy. You can be
pretty sure about those, but not about 2 cards dropped.  John