[blml] psyches, rule of coincidence

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"The angels keep their ancient places;
- Turn but a stone, and start a wing!
'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces 
That miss the many-splendoured thing."
                         [Francis Thompson]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence


> At 11:36 AM 1/18/07, Grattan wrote:
> 
> >From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
> >
> > > You don't need the RoC to rule CPU based on
> > > a single occurence when you have evidence beyond
> > > the mere coincidence of the actions working out
> > > well to suggest that there might be one.  You need
> > > the RoC only if you're determined to find a CPU
> > > under every rock and sandpile.
> >
> >+=+ Counsel's opinion to which I am privy is that,
> >for any standard ruling under the Laws, the Director
> >must be satisfied on the evidence available to him
> >that it reflects the balance of probability. A more
> >rigorous standard may apply in matters of discipline.
> 
> "The Director must be satisfied on the evidence 
> available to him that it reflects the balance of probability."  
> That says that he may not be satisfied solely on the 
> coincidence of unusual actions and a beneficial result.  It 
> is an explicit repudiation of Mr. Wolff's "Rule of 
> Coincidence".
> 
+=+ In scrolling through an accumulation of stuff when 
deleting I noticed this, to which I did not respond. There
is no 'explicit repudiation' of anything.   The Law Book 
puts the judgement of the evidence in any single incident 
in the hands of the Director (and subsequently in the 
hands of the AC).  There is no certainty in any single
case that the Rule of Coincidence will or will not satisfy 
the criterion of 'the balance of probability'. 
       There are coincidences and Coincidences. Mr W
expresses a view perhaps on the frequency with which 
the Director should be persuaded by the existence of 
such evidence; others will take a different stance. My
position is simply that each occasion calls for objective 
judgement of the available facts and inferences.  
                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+