[blml] ...have we really come to this???

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 
>> Grattan Endicott:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>        Mike Amos comments, more recently, that
>>>> "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself.
>>>> I had always understood that if we decided to disallow
>>>> a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the
>>>> weightings.  It is certainly illegal in England "  In EBL and
>>>> WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply.
>>>> When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of
>>>> weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that
>>>> equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the
>>>> time if that was judged to be what would happen had
>>>> no irregularity occurred.
>>>>
>>>>                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>> Ton Kooijman:
>>
>>> I don't know what the appeal committee of the WBF is doing. I
>>> am not even sure that that committee has the authority to
>>> allow weighted rulings. I remember that the Laws Committee has
>>> talked about the subject. And I can assure you that 'no strong
>>> body' has expressed its opinion that if a call is not accepted
>>> because it could have been made under the influence of UI, it
>>> could get a weight other then zero in the adjusted score.
>> Richard Hills:
>>
>> Have we really come to this, that the WBF Appeals Committee has
>> allowed rulings which are _disallowed_ by the WBF Code of
>> Practice for Appeals Committees???
>>
>> WBF Code of Practice, page 7:
>>
>> "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information
>> available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law
>> or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a
>> breach of the laws."
>>
>> Richard Hills:
>>
>> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a
>> basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is
>> "the irregularity".  Since the WBF CoP states that it is _the
>> use of information_ which is "the irregularity", then it is
>> illegally contrary to the WBF CoP for the WBF AC to include the
>> disallowed call in the weightings.
> 
> I think I see where the problem is coming from.  The "real"  
> infraction is making a call which was suggested by the UI, which does  
> not necessarily mean making the call actually chosen; in Ton's words,  
> "a call is not accepted because it could have been made under the  
> influence of UI".  Thus a literal reading of "had the irregularity  
> not occurred" would require that zero weight be given not only to the  
> call the offender actually made, but to all other "suggested  
> alternatives" as well.  That would certainly please some folks, as it  
> would make L12C3 applicable to far fewer cases than it otherwise  
> would be (and result, on average, in harsher adjustments for  
> offenders).  But it would represent a whole new approach, and negate  
> the precedential value of established L12C3-related jurisprudence.
> 

Of course it makes all suggested alternatives weight zero.
But then it's rather unusual to be using L12C3 (or rather, weighted 
scores) in UI cases anyway. L12C3 is more often used for MI cases, in 
which it is far less contested (I think). After all, do you really 
want to give a NOs 100% of the best thing they could have done with 
better information?

> 
> Eric Landau
> 1107 Dale Drive
> Silver Spring MD 20910
> ehaa at starpower.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html