[BLML] Burn, David Burn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Mon Jan 7 02:31:55 CET 2013


UNOFFICIAL
David Burn’s AC Chair comments:

[snip]
>>We estimated the probability that East-West had actually [not] committed
>>a foul as, say, 20% and we ruled on that basis (miraculously, this required
>>no score adjustment).
[snip]
>>This ruling was certainly illegal and may go down in history as the worst
>>since (or even before) that of Ted Reveley, but it coincided with our sense
>>of natural justice
[snip]

Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments:

>I don’t believe that the eventual AC ruling was illegal (I would not have
>agreed to it if I had so believed!) During our lengthy discussion, one AC
>member suggested that the sequence 1C-(1suit)-2C must have come up
>several times before for this pair and, given that the pair must have played
>thousands of boards together, the other two AC members considered that
>he was quite possibly right (notwithstanding the pair’s claim that they had
>never had the sequence before).

Richard Hills quibble:

Pairs who play that their natural 1C opening could be as few as two cards
(as East-West did) also often have the agreement that 2C raises must be
based on 5-card club support (and East did hold 5-card support). If East-
West did have such a 5-card agreement for a 2C raise, then the East-West
assertion that 1C-(1 suit)-2C had never occurred in their partnership was
entirely plausible.

Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments:

>On this basis it seems legal to rule that there was a partnership agreement
>for 2C and that, as the TD is to presume mistaken explanation in the
>absence of evidence to the contrary,

Richard Hills quibble:

But the Director did indeed gather evidence to the contrary, therefore ruling
that 1C-(1 suit)-2C was “undiscussed”.

Jeffrey Allerton (AC member) casebook comments:

>the actual agreement for 2C should be deemed to be forcing.
>
>We were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the
>explanation of “forcing” North might have protected anyway (after all,
>from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a
>forcing bid!).

Richard Hills quibble:

Most clauses of the WBF Code of Practice have been adopted as EBU
regulations. In particular this WBF CoP clause is an EBU reg:

“The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that
the Director’s ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of
evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the committee
if a ruling in favour of the non‐offending side reflects a margin of doubt that
continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure.”

So to overturn the Director’s factual assessment of “zero partnership
understanding”, the Appeals Committee cannot merely apply its cynical
suspicion of East-West speaking terminological inexactitudes. The AC must
additionally discover new evidence not available to the TD.


Best wishes,

R.J.B. Hills

UNOFFICIAL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130107/8b4cb851/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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


---------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Blml mailing list