[blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>second half of Law 40E1:
>>
>>".....including a requirement that both members of a partnership
>>employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style
>>and judgement, only method)."
>>
>>The problem with this Law is that it uses undefined terms such as
>>the word "style" (and this word is not used anywhere else in the
>>Lawbook),

Eric Landau:

>>>IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have
>>>an agreement on the subject.

Tim West-Meads:

>Eric, there exists - in the light of L40E [see above - RJH]
>.....
>a presumed non-empty set of understandings which do not constitute
>regulable agreements.

Richard Hills:

>>I disagree with Tim and John.  In my opinion, if something is
>>frequent enough to be disclosed, then it is frequent enough to be
>>an implicit partnership agreement.

Tim West-Meads:

>The laws disagree with you.  75C "a player shall disclose all
>special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement
>or partnership experience".  Again there is a presumed non-empty
>set of information conveyed through partnership experience rather
>than any sort of agreement.

Richard Hills:

I still disagree with Tim on his three main points.

**Imprimis**
To say that a particular type of agreement - "style" - may not be
restricted by regulation is _not_ the same as saying that "style"
is not an agreement.  Ergo, I back Eric's point that agreeing to
disagree creates an agreement, which therefore must be disclosed.

**Secundus**
Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's
1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT
overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit.

It seems to me that this stretched-like-a-rubber-band quibbling
interpretation of "style" is contrary to the intentions of the
drafters of the Laws.  Rather, it seems to me that the intent was
to legally permit a player to adopt the "style" of using
"judgement" in hand evaluation.

For example, if a player held a balanced 18 hcp mostly consisting
of scattered honours with poor pips they could stylishly judge to
downgrade to a 15-17 1NT overcall.  Likewise any superb balanced
14 hcp with concentrated quick tricks and plenty of tens and nines
could be stylishly judged to be upgraded to a 15-17 1NT overcall.

But "gross" is not "style".  So therefore, since a true psyche is
defined as "a gross misstatement", Law 40E1 does not apply to any
decision to psyche (Law 40A is the relevant Law instead).

However, as implied in my initial posting above, I believe that it
would be useful if the phrase "style and judgement" was defined in
the 2008 Definitions so as to prevent any sea-lawyer quibbling.

**Tertius**
It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling
misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C.  My interpretation of
"the non-empty set of information" left open by Law 75C is that it
is merely the special information that a player gets by seeing the
cards in their own hand.  Corroboration for my interpretation is
in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate
description of the North-South hands".


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, mentor
Divisional Executive Officer unit
People Services, Values & Training Division
(02) 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for

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.
DIMA 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