[blml] Complaints of ill-usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Lord Melbourne (1779-1848), after his dismissal as
Prime Minister by King William 1V:

"I have always thought complaints of ill-usage
contemptible, whether from a seduced disappointed girl
or a turned out Prime Minister."

Draft EBU Laws & Ethics Committee minutes 6th June 2006:

[snip]

7.2 Complaint from a member 'Iguana'

Mr Faulkner considered that publication of material on
BLML (or equivalent) could count as conduct or behaviour
which falls below accepted standards as allowed by
3.2(v) of the Disciplinary rules of EBU Ltd. However Mr
Barnfield felt that there was more 'rough and tumble'
language used on the internet than might be accepted in
face to face encounters.

It was the decision of the committee that 'While we may
disagree with the comments used, the nature of language
used by the internet community meant that the comment
was not so far in breach of 3.2(v) of the Disciplinary
code to merit any further action by the committee'.

The secretary was asked to write to both parties with
the decision.

[snip]

8.2 06.23

Dealer S
Game all

Scoring: VPs .

                       K6
                       Q6
                       7632
                       KQJ53
T9                                       AJ8732
A93                                      KT542
AKQJ                                     84
AT64                                     ---
                       Q54
                       J87
                       T95
                       9872

West      North     East      South
---       ---       ---       Pass
1C(A)(1)  2C        2S        Pass
2NT       Pass      3H        Pass
3NT       Pass      4H        Pass
4NT(A)    Pass      5H        Pass
6S        Pass      Pass      Pass

(1) 'Strong' club

Result: 6S= by East = -1430

TD first called: at end of hand

Tournament Director's statement of facts & ruling

NS called me as they felt that EW had reached a contract
based of extraneous information (viz the previous table
discussing the hand). N & S both overheard a player
state that 'should have bid 6' and also '..shape was
6/5'. N felt that the 6S contract was achieved as a
result of that. Both E and W stated that they did not
hear the detail of the conversation and ignored the
conversation anyway. At table, when I was asking West
(only) about the auction, he did say that he knew E was
at least 5/5 . East now stated without being asked that
it was showing 6/5. West confirmed that was why he bid
6S to pitch (word unclear) of the D suit. A player at
the other table admitted he had discussed the hand and
apologised).

I felt there are two separate problems 1) Did EW
overhear the conversation at the other table and 2) Did
EW act upon it. In answer to 1) I think it probable that
they did hear what was said, but cannot prove this.
2) EW (esp.W) has declared that his bidding was NOT
influenced by any E.I. (because he didn't have any
E.I.), thus he bid the contract on its own merits.
Table result stands.

Appeals Committee's decision

Committee were satisfied. Auction seemed consistent with
no overheard conversation.

L&E comment:

The committee were unhappy that North/South had not
called the TD to report that they had overheard matters
at the other table. Law 16B refers. The secretary was
asked to write to North/South pointing this out.

[snip]

Best wishes

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