[blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 16/03/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> >>To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal
> >>committee is completely unworkable.  I cannot comprehend how directors
> >>and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them
> >>scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate
> >>information.
>
> John Probst:
>
> >The failure to protect guidance in the OB uses the words "probably
> >aware" and is designed to stop double shotting. TDs and ACs have
> >completely misunderstood the purpose of this "failure to protect" which
> >is also part of the WBF regs. Bridge is a game of full disclosure and
> >ANY failure fully to (non-split-infinitive) disclose which leads to
> >damage and to (non-hanging-preposition) which "could have known*
> >applies requires adjustment. MI is *not* how we play bridge.  I agree.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> According to my (possibly imperfect) recollection of the facts of this
> particular case involving Wayne Burrows, it seems to me that "probably
> aware", thus Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts), was the basis for the
> Chief Director's ruling.
>
> As I recall, Wayne related how the opponents' system card had both the
> "underlead" and the "overlead" boxes ticked, but he only noticed the
> prior box.  If Wayne's opponents were using the standardised ABF
> System Card, then those two boxes are on adjacent lines.
>
> So yet again it seems that Wayne's bugbear of "balance of probabilities"
> has bitten him on the backside, and the Chief Director has deemed for
> the purposes of Law 85 the disputed facts were that Wayne noticed both
> ticks in both boxes, then Wayne double shotted.
>
> Of course, I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16
> that Wayne is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief
> Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities
> differently in my Law 85 ruling.
>

Certainly I have a major problem with 'balance of probabilities'
especially when that arguement is used as a substitute for
investigating the facts.

Secondly in the particular case noone suggested that I double shotted.
 To me it would be bizarre to make a ruling based on a double shot
without that 'disputed fact' even being aired by the director or by
the appeal committee.

Thirdly I have lost interest in the damage that was done to my side by
the opponent's infraction.  I will be happy to tell the chairman of
the appeal committee at the table that I am just checking the rest of
his card in case there are contradictions should I require information
when playing against him to illustrate the nonsense in the ruling.  As
as far as I can tell that was the substance of the ruling conveyed to
me - "I damaged myself" by not reading the system card thoroughly or
asking questions.

The point in my previous post was not that I should get a different
score but that it is an even greater nonsense to reward my opponents
for incorrectly filling in their card.  When I mentioned this
arguement to one of the appeal committee members I continued with 'I
might as well automatically tick "underlead" since anyone who is
mislead will be told that they damaged themselves and there will be no
penalty to me'.  He replied 'You can play bridge like that if you
want'.  From which I deduce that the appeal committee have no problems
with offenders gaining an advantage from their infractions.  To me
this is complete and utter nonsense.

Wayne