[blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Tim West-Meads asserted:

>I'll happily use "could have known" to adjust the score afterwards
>should it prove necessary, but I'd rather just explain the benefits
>(to NOS) of waiving the PC along with the UI obligations on OS and
>get a fair result at the table.

Richard Hills quibbles:

Law 10C1 requires the Director to explain all the options.  Law 72A4
permits the non-offending side to select an advantageous option.

But for the Director to explain to the non-offending side the benefit
of them selecting a particular option is extraneous to Law.  It seems
to me that such an extraneous action by the Director is contrary to
the nature of the game.

Tim West-Meads asserted:

>Regardless of which of those options I choose NOS are not entitled
>to the windfall result of ruff AND HK must be played.

Richard Hills quibbles:

I am uncomfortable with the word "windfall".  In my opinion, that
word has often been used to deny the non-offending side what they are
entitled by Law.  For example, in the ACBL the concept of "windfall"
has been used by some senior personalities to suggest that a Yankee
Reveley ruling is appropriate.

In the basic English Reveley ruling (now specifically outlawed by a
decision of the EBU Law & Ethics Committee) a Law 12C3 adjustment can
include in its weighted results an assumption that some of the time a
demonstrably suggested logical alternative is legal.

In the suggested Yankee version of a Reveley ruling, the concept of
legality may be split when a Law 12C2 adjustment is split.  For the
offending side, their demonstrably suggested logical alternative is
correctly deemed to be OS-illegal.  But to prevent a "windfall" for
the non-offending side, the offending side's demonstrably suggested
logical alternative is deemed to be NOS-legal.  For example, the non-
offending side is awarded +300 defending 4Sx, a score which is an
average due to having occurred at all other tables, rather than the
"windfall" of +620 in 4H for a top when UI demonstrably suggests the
save and a pass is just barely a logical alternative.  (Meanwhile the
offending side is correctly awarded -620.)

The problem with the Yankee Reveley ruling is that a non-offending
side gets a "windfall" of +620 when their opponents obey Law 16 and
Law 73C, but gets a "downfall" of +300 opposite careless opponents
who accidentally infract Law 16 and Law 73C.


Best wishes

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

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