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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>>(3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally
>>>permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but
>>>provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these
>>>HUM conventions.  In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM
>>>convention without the required pre-disclosure ...

Steve Willner:

>>And this is the one we've been arguing about.  Everybody agrees (3)
>>is illegal, but the question is how to adjust.  Is it MI, IC, or
>>something else?

[IC = illegal convention.  SAEUOA welcomes new members.]

Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994,
Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None

Director's Ruling:

"When the Director (Schoder) was called, he cancelled the result and
awarded three IMPs to North-South....."

Ton Kooijman (appeals casebook commentator):

".....The question to be answered was whether North-South were damaged
by the use of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself,
but they did not announce it properly).  Could and would North-South
have done better knowing the convention?  I do not believe it and I
would not have changed the score....."

Herman De Wael:

>We know that sometimes TDs get it wrong. Even good ones.

Richard Hills:

Is Herman a good TD, thus sometimes getting it wrong?  :-)  Of course
I agree with Herman's main point.  Given that William Schoder (Kojak)
was ruling illegal convention, while Ton Kooijman was instead ruling
misinformation, at least one of these two great directors must have
got it wrong.

Committee Decision:

".....This pair had to play the methods on the convention card
officially registered....."

Steve Willner:

>.....where's the dividing line, and what law or interpretation
>justifies it?

Richard Hills:

It seems to me that this committee decision is the answer to Steve
Willner's question.  The dividing line is dependent on the Law 40D
regulation created by the sponsoring organisation.

If the sponsoring organisation states that a convention is always
legal, but additionally requires a pre-alert, then failure to pre-
alert creates an infraction of misinformation.

If the sponsoring organisation states that a convention cannot be
used unless it appears on a pre-registered system card, then the
use of that unregistered convention creates an infraction of illegal
convention.

So, it seems to me, that the dividing line is between:

(a) always legal agreements, and

(b) usually illegal (but perhaps with specific and specified
exemptions) agreements.


Best wishes

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

[SAEUOA = Society Against Excessive Use Of Acronyms]

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