[blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Harald Skjæran:
>
> >I'm not sure if it's only a bad write-up or if the TDs
> >and AC doesn't have a clue to how to handle UI cases.
> >
> >The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action
> >demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI
> >transmitted.
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Well, Grattan Endicott was on the Appeals Committee, and
> Grattan's blml postings demonstrate he has a clue on how
> to handle UI cases.
>
> And Herman De Wael was the scribe responsible for the
> write-up, and Herman's blml postings demonstrate.....???
>
> :-)
>
> But seriously, West knows that he is in a slam try
> auction.  From West's point of view hearts was the suit
> in which the slam try was being made.  So, when West bid
> 4H, West thought 4H was non-forcing (being unaware that
> East always intended converting to spades).
>

This is contrary to West's assertion that he thought that 4H showed the hK.

And further the director's ruling seems to ignore the possibility that
4H was a cue as West claimed and that East probably always intended to
correct to spades at some level.

Why does the director who made this ruling get to remain anonymous?

Wayne