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

[Herman De Wael]

Richard is still being a bull with Herman as a red rag in front of his 
eyes.

We are not in disagreement Richard - stop it!

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Herman De Wael asserted:
> 
>>> ...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the
>>> explanation does not conform to the CC, the
>>> lawbook is silent about the reverse.
> 
> Herman De Wael again asserted:
> 
>> Isn't that true?
>> The footnote says that the TD should rule MI
>> rather than misbid in the absence of evidence,
>> OK?
>>
>> So, in all cases where a CC is present, there
>> are only 2 possibilities: either the spoken
>> explanation conforms to the CC, or it doesn't
> 
> Richard Hills begs to differ:
> 
> More possibilities than two.  

"It is, or it isn't" - yet Richard finds a third option. Why?

> For example, both
> the CC and the spoken explanation could be
> wrong in different ways.
> 

which is in the second category of the explanation not conforming to 
the CC, isn't it?

> Herman De Wael again asserted:
> 
>> (of course the explanation does not conform to
>> the hand, or we would not be having a ruling
>> to make).
> 
> Richard Hills begs to differ:
> 
> No ruling?  A De Wael School explanation which
> conforms to partner's hand could still be the
> infraction of misexplanation, if the explainer
> has illegally customised their explanation to
> conform with partner's misbid, rather than to
> describe mutual partnership agreement.
> 

If the explanation conforms to the hand, very seldom there will be a 
ruling. In the unlikely case of the TD being called and misinformation 
and misbid being both present (both partner simultaneously and in the 
same manner forgetting the system on their CC, there will be MI, no 
damage.

> Herman De Wael again asserted:
> 
>> Now, if the explanation does not fit the CC,
>> there is surely no evidence present to make
>> believe that the explanation was correct after
>> all, was there?
>>
>> That is what I meant by "we should rule MI if
>> the explanation does not conform to the CC".
> 
> Richard Hills begs to differ:
> 
> We have had this debate before.  In my opinion,
> verbal evidence is evidence.  Self-serving
> contemporaneous verbal evidence may usually
> have less weight than pre-existing written
> evidence in the scales of justice, but it does
> not have _zero_ weight.  And, in some cases, a
> TD may rightly judge that self-serving verbal
> evidence does indeed outweigh pre-existing
> written evidence in the scales of justice.
> 

Richard, once again you are merely stating in a different manner 
something which I wrote in your support!
Yes, verbal evidence is evidence. But the laws do not say what one 
should do in the presence of evidence, only in the absence of 
evidence. We may disagree on the fact that absence of written evidence 
alone is enough to rule MI, but we are not talking about that. We are 
talking about cases where there is presence of written evidence! You 
and I are both in agreement that such presence is not enough to always 
rule misbid.

> On the other hand, the De Wael School chooses
> to interpret "the Director is to presume
> Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid,
> in the absence of evidence to the contrary" as
> meaning "in the absence of _written_ evidence
> to the contrary", which is consistent with the
> overall De Wael School preference that it is
> more correct to explain partner's cards than it
> is to explain mutual partnership agreements.
> 

Yes indeed, I may well be a little more strict in the weighing of 
evidence. But again, that is not what this thread is about. This 
thread, which you started BTW, is about cases where we want to rule MI 
despite the CC confirming the spoken explanation.
So please stop disagreeing with me when for once we are in agreement 
about some aspect of this debate.

There is no use shouting again and again that Herman is wrong. People 
will start believing it. Or worse even, disbelieving it!


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be