[blml] October the First is Too Late [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

>From the "...sixth sheep..." thread ->

Richard Hills (September 27th):

>>That sort of law change makes a considerable amount of
>>sense, since the TD would have fewer MI rulings to make
>>(albeit counter-balanced by more UI rulings, but in my
>>experience an accurate UI ruling is easier to assess than
>>an accurate MI ruling).
>>
>>The only technical problem

[snip]

Herman De Wael (September 27th):

>Good analysis Richard.

[snip]

Richard Hills (October the First):

Actually my analysis was a very bad analysis.  Although it
traversed what would be the technical problem in an ideal
world, it totally ignored the psychological problem in the
real world.

>From the "self-serving?" thread ->

David Burn (September 22nd):

[snip]

>>>when I use the word "cheating" I mean "doing something that
>>>a cheat would have done".

[snip]

>>>And Judas was a tolerable chap.

Richard Hills (October the First):

Yes, there are four types of cheating:

1. "Clever" cheating - using toe-tapping or finger signals to
transmit information to partner.  "Clever" because the cheats
will usually get away with it until the mechanism is detected.
But not-so-clever because unusual success with no apparent
reason will attract suspicion and consequent close scrutiny.
So once the close scrutiny unearths the mechanism, the cheats
will get a ten-year-to-life ban.

2. Stupid cheating - having and using (illegal "fielding") a
concealed partnership understanding, and consequently alleging
that the CPU was a psyche.  Stupid because both real psyches
and alleged psyches are highly noticeable deviations from the
norm, so immediate corrective action can be taken via a score
adjustment and a procedural penalty.  Most stupid cheaters
would learn from that experience and abandon any future CPU
cheating, but no doubt some very stupid cheaters would persist
with their pseudo-psyche cheating and so eventually get a ten-
year-to-life ban.

3. Quixotic cheating - having but not using (no "fielding") a
concealed partnership understanding, due to one partner using
a Bruckner Retribution Bid on the other partner's perpetration
of a pseudo-psyche (often because one partner disapproves of
the other partner's habitual pseudo-psyches).  Not detected by
the criteria of the EBU "Red Psyche" regulation.  But usually
the opponents are not damaged by the quixotic cheating, since
the usual result of a Bruckner Retribution Bid is that a four-
figure windfall penalty drops into the opponents' laps.

4. Common cheating - one partner without design transmits UI,
and the other partner self-deludingly rationalises that the
demonstrably suggested logical alternative that they choose
was "the call that I was always going to make anyway".

All four categories fit into David Burn's definition of "doing
something a cheat would have done".

But.....

Spot the deliberate mistake in my above categorisation.

Defining Category 4 as "common cheating" is totally contrary
to Law and its official interpretation for the past half-
century.  Rather a simple self-delusion which causes a simple
infraction of Law 16 results in a simple score adjustment
without any procedural or disciplinary penalty.

But because the common incorrect attitude is that a break in
tempo is an action of a cheat, low-level club TDs have no
hesitation in giving MI rulings, but have great hesitation in
giving UI rulings.  This is because low-level club TDs and
low-level club players assume that labelling one side as the
offending side in a Law 16 ruling has a one-to-one
correspondence with labelling that side as cheats.

Ergo, tweaking Law 75D2 in the 2017 Lawbook, so that MI was
reduced and UI was increased, would have the psychological
disadvantage at club level in increasing the number of rulings
which are director's errors.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

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