[blml] Autodidact [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

John Dryden (1631-1700):

"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for pearls must dive below."

Richard Hills:

When moving house last weekend, I unearthed a
1994 ACBL Appeals Casebook, and discovered that
several of the then appeals committees and
casebook commentators believed that a misbid was
an "offence", and therefore it was legal to apply
a Law 90 procedural penalty to a misbid.

In more recent times David Stevenson opined on
blml that while an infraction is an "offence"
(since all infractions clearly fit the Law 90A
definitional clause of "violates correct
procedure"), an "offence" is not necessarily an
infraction.

However, this Stevensonian interpretation of
"offence" is inconsistent with these WBF Code of
Practice rules; page 6:

"A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse
of ethics where a player is in breach of the
provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct
of players. A player who has conformed to the
laws and regulations is not subject to criticism."

and page 9:

"A procedural penalty may only be applied where
there is a violation of the laws or of a
regulation made under the laws. If an appeal
committee awards a procedural penalty it should
specify what law or regulation has been violated."

And, of course, the footnote to Law 75 clearly
states that a solitary misbid "is no infraction
of Law".

However, repeatedly and frequently carelessly
misbidding may well transmogrify "no infraction of
Law" into an infraction of Law 74B1:

"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain
from: paying insufficient attention to the game."

This point is also noted in the WBF Code of
Practice, page 9:

"In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a
player who forgets his convention, misbids or
misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty.
It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will
only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as
for example misuse several times repeated."

It seems to me that because distinguished ACBL
Appeals Committees and a distinguished Director
(David Stevenson) have committed "straw-like
errors" in interpreting the Law 90 "offence", it
would be useful if the "pearls below" were
dredged to the surface in 2008.

Grattan Endicott (blml 15th February 2007):

[snip]

>In a game where language is often a term of the
>art, or jargon as you might say, it is desirable
>to be as clear as possible about the meaning of
>the language in which the rules are written. In
>drafting the next code of laws considerable
>attention has been given to this objective but,
>despite much consultation, it would be rash in
>the extreme to suggest that there will be no
>problem of this category when it is activated.
>                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

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