[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Fowler, "Modern English Usage":

>>_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'.
>>
>>The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis
>>that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion
>>itself.
>>
>>*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.;
>>other (not circular) examples are that capital
>>punishment is necessary because without it murders
>>would increase, and that democracy must be the
>>best form of government because the majority are
>>always right.

Appeals Committee decision, 1994:

>The laws are clear that when the offenders can
>*prove* they misbid, rather than misexplained, no
>adjustment is given. Thus, restoring the original
>result was mandated by the laws.

Bart Bramley, Appeals Committee chair, 1994:

>Damage is often severe when, as in this case, one
>partner thinks "natural" and the other
>"artificial". (A disproportionate number of these
>mix-ups seem to happen after an opening bid of
>1NT.) Frequently, a normal bridge result becomes
>impossible to obtain. This is not how we were
>intended to play. I believe the offending side
>deserves the worst of it when such accidents
>occur.

Richard Hills:

Even under the 1987 Lawbook which applied for this
1994 appeal, the Law 75 footnote stated that for a
misbid "there is no infraction of law".

So the question begging that the committee majority
and its chairman got tangled up in was referring to
"offenders" and "offending side".

If a side has not infracted law, they ipso facto
cannot be an "offending side", but must instead be
a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not
subject to Law 90, which only permits a procedural
penalty to be applied for an "offence".


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