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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

>>>And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and
>>>misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find
>>>this a misbid? I don't!

Grattan Endicott:

>>+=+ Cries of "convention disruption"!
>>      But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must
>>explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2,
>>does not apply here.
>>                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Herman De Wael:

>This is not really my argument, but Richard's.

[snip]

>But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I do agree
>with him, though.

Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), during the Peninsular War,
dispatch of 29 August 1810:

"When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of some
of the general officers of this army, and consider that
these are the persons on whom I am to rely to lead columns
against the French, I tremble; and as Lord Chesterfield said
of the generals of his day, 'I only hope that when the enemy
reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do.'"

[Usually misquoted as, "I don't know what effect these men
will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."]

Richard Hills:

Indeed I tremble upon General De Wael agreeing with me.

:-)

However, it seems to me that Herman has slightly misquoted
my argument by using the phrase "subsequently forgets",
which implies "initially understood".  One cannot forget an
agreement one never learned in the first place.

My argument is that the footnote example 2 of Law 75 should
be read in conjunction with Law 75B.  It is legal to forget
or misuse an agreement if such forgetting or misuse is not
habitual.  But if one _habitually_ forgets or misuses a
notional explicit agreement, then a new actual implicit
agreement supersedes the previous agreement.

Detailed advice on how habit creates superseding implicit
agreements is in the WBF Code of Practice, pages 7 and 8.
Some relevant quotes:

"Where the same explanation of a call is given to both
members of the opposing side, it being subsequently
confirmed that both members of the side giving the
explanation agree this is its correct meaning (and there is
no conflict with information on the convention card), if
the hand to which the explanation relates is materially
different from the explanation the matter should be dealt
with under the laws and regulations concerned with psychic
action."

"A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly
agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist
because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number
of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit
understanding exists it must be determined that the partner
of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that
in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will
be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of
the following circumstances is established:
(a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership
on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that
the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind -
habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent
that it may be anticipated; or
(b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred
in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is
so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or
(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the
partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently,
that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such
psychic calls to occur; or
(d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of
some significant external matter that may help recognition
of the psychic call."

Richard Hills:

So, in the stem case of this thread, a 3C overcall was
described on the CC as a Ghestem two-suiter, but actually
was a club one-suiter.  Had habit caused an implicit two-
way agreement of clubs or Ghestem to develop, or was the 3C
overcall merely a misbid?

In my opinion, the Director should have undertaken some
detailed investigation pursuant to the Director's powers
under Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts).  In my opinion,
it is highly plausible that a prior history of Ghestem
forgetfulness created an implicit agreement under clause
(a) and/or clause (b) above.

Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm