[blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Wayne Burrows:

[big snip]

>>The director IMO correctly determined that I was entitled to both
>>tricks after the false claim.
>>
>>A few years ago in a similar position the director ruled against
>>me as did the appeal committee with the added comment that I was
>>just trying to win a trick by stealth - my paraphrase not the
>>actual words.

EBU Appeals Casebook 2000, Appeal 9 "Claim carefully!":

[big snip]

>Director's ruling:
>4D -1 by West, NS +50
>
>Details of ruling:
>Intention to finesse not made in original statement. It would be
>careless or inferior to play CJ - not irrational. (Laws 70D, 70E.)
>
>Appeal lodged by:
>East-West
>
>Appeals Committee decision:
>Director's ruling upheld. Deposit returned
>
>Appeals Committee's comments:
>Sadly, the Committee do not feel that there is scope to allow the
>appeal. West was at fault in failing to state his line for the
>claim (which was blatantly obvious) and North-South are entitled
>to exact their rights under the Law.

David Stevenson (casebook commentator):

[snip]

>The Appeals Committee has expressed their distaste, but they do
>not consider the play of the CJ irrational. Some North-South
>players would not have contested this claim at all.

[snip]

Herman De Wael (casebook commentator):

[snip]

>This, together with the almost unethical Director call by
>North/South,

[snip]

Richard Hills:

In the WBF Code of Practice, the section on Ethics states that,
"A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not
subject to criticism."  In this case a player legally called the
Director after a dodgy claim, the Director ruled that the claim
was invalid, and the Appeals Committee upheld the Director's
ruling.

Yet in the official casebook there are published a whole series
of innuendoes tantamount to "trying to win a trick by stealth":

* "Sadly"
* "Blatantly obvious"
* "Exact their rights" (echoes of exacting a pound of flesh?)
* "Distaste"
* "Some would not have contested at all"
* "Almost unethical"

Sensibly the Law and Ethics Committee comments on this case were
restricted to what is required by Law, eschewing personal views
on the ethics of successfully disputing a claim.

Laws & Ethics Committee comments:

>The L&E did not conclude whether they agreed with the statement
>that the winning line was "blatantly obvious". However, the L&E
>views that if the Appeals Committee thought the winning line
>was "blatantly obvious" then all other lines would presumably
>be "irrational" within the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the
>Appeals Committee should have held that, in effect, the finesse
>should be allowed.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
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.
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