[blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills asserted:

[big snip]

>>>the deliberate falsehoods which are a consequence
>>>of the De Wael School are contrary to the generally
>>>accepted nature of the game of bridge.

Roger Pewick:

>>As the nature of the game is generally accepted, I
>>am puzzled at the number of those that persist in
>>pursuing it.

Grattan Endicott, 15th February 2007:

>+=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, or
>by a statement of an object to be obtained in
>compliance with its rules. This does not predicate a
>necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player
>accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them.
>                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Richard Hills retracts:

Okay, the "generally accepted nature of the game" is
an irrelevant consideration when determining legality
or illegality of an action.  I therefore retract my
previous assertion and agree that a game is defined by
its rules, since any other approach would lead to
chaotic and inconsistent rulings according to each
individual director's idiosyncratic interpretation of
the "generally accepted nature of the game".

But taking a step backwards, since Duplicate Bridge is
"defined by its rules", what criteria should a National
Authority (for example, the Belgian National Authority)
use when deciding upon a temporary interpretation of an
ambiguity in the Lawbook?  Is the external-to-Law
guidepost of "generally accepted nature of the game" a
valid approach when creating new Law to fill a gap?


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