[BLML] Delayed challenge to a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Nov 11 18:46:45 CET 2013


On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:20:13 -0500, Richard HILLS  
<richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>
>
> UNOFFICIAL
>
>
> Inscription upon the gravestone of Spike Milligan:
>
>
> Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite.
>
> [I told you I was ill.]
>
>
> Richard Hills:
>
>
>>> (1) The non-claimers did NOT create any irregularity whatsoever. A non-
>
>>> claiming side has a RIGHT to delay acceptance of a claim under Law 69A.
>
>>>
>
>>> (2) Law 70A’s prescription on “Doubt” merely states that “...any  
>>> doubtful
>
>>> point ++as to a claim++ shall be resolved against the claimer...”. If  
>>> there >is
>
>>> doubt as to the cards played to tricks BEFORE the claim, then the  
>>> relevant
>
>>> Laws are Law 65D and Law 85.
>
>>> .....
>
>
>> I don't see how L65D is relevant. Can you explain? To recap, the players
>
>> have put their cards back in the board and the defenders are now  
>> >challenging
>
>> the claim.
>
>
> Law 65D, Agreement on Results of Play:
>
>
> “A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until  
> agreement
>
> has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to  
> comply
>
> with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership  
> of
>
> doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.”
>
>
> Richard Hills:
>
>
> All four players have disturbed the order of their played cards by  
> shuffling
>
> them (Law 7C) and putting them back in the board. Therefore neither side
>
> gains the benefit of the doubt as to the sequence and composition of the  
> >pre-
>
> claim tricks.

Hi Richard. I was looking at this and I think I found an error. Both sides  
did in fact agree on the number of tricks won before shuffling their cards  
and putting them back in the board. Now the nonclaiming side is  
disagreeing. The point is, there is no infraction of L65D by the claiming  
side.

Hence, the claiming side would get the benefit of doubt. Or at least his  
rights to claim ownership of a doubtrul trick is jeopardized.

True?

Bob







>> Ergo, to determine the nature of the pre-claim tricks the Director
>
> ++must++ apply à
>
>
> Law 85A1, Rulings on Disputed Facts, Director’s Assessment:
>
>
> “When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or  
> regulation in
>
> which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
>
> In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance  
> of
>
> probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the  
> evidence
>
> he is able to collect.”
>
> UNOFFICIAL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.  DIBP 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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>



-- 
ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com


More information about the Blml mailing list