[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
.............
> Sven Pran:
> 
> >>Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about
> the actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger
> >>than verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional,
> >>overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Requiring "overwhelming evidence" to over-rule what is written on the CC
> is, in my opinion, too simplistic.  It is the Director's job to assess the
> facts, not to assume that their Sven Pran School suspicions and/or Richard
> Hills School suspicions are almost always automatically correct.
> 
> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC,
> quite often in partnerships one player is The Master.  The Master issues
> the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention".  Then The Master
> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC.  And meanwhile The Master's partner
> has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which
> means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister 
> 1NT.

This is of course true. Still the CC is like an abbreviated "contract"
between two players as to what agreements they have made, and the kind of
partnership you describe where one player "agrees" to something he doesn't
even know has no place at all in the environments I know.

I assume that if you (for instance as a member of the jury in a civil court)
were faced with a written contract and a conflicting verbal claim as to what
had been agreed upon between a plaintiff and a defendant you too would
require "additional, overwhelming evidence" corroborating the verbal claim
before you ruled against the written contract?

Please note that I have said nothing about the nature of such additional
evidence, not in court nor in bridge, it can be witness statements it can be
drafts or whatever.

Sven