[BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard James HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Thu Apr 24 07:30:08 CEST 2014


UNOFFICIAL

Herman De Wael, February 2008:

>>>.....
>>>when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does
>>>not make sense.

David Burn, February 2008

>>[Lewis Carroll]
>>
>>“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice –
>>What I tell you three times is true.”
>>
>>What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman’s
>>case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and
>>the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to
>>[a] his sincerity;
>>[b] his integrity and
>>[c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved.
>>
>>I don’t deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new
>>code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think
>>that Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments advanced, especially
>>by those in positions of authority, to resolve the problem (which is to say
>>that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton Kooijman are a
>>bit fed up with him). I think, as I have said many times, that he is wrong
>>to rely on the “principle” that creation of UI is more to be avoided than
>>creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that the Laws are somehow
>>“hierarchically” based on that principle.
>>
>>But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually
>>makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a
>>great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place.
>>.....

Great service to the game by Herman, WBF LC minute October 2008:

“There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner’s
prior explanation was mistaken. The words ‘nor may he indicate in any
manner that a mistake has been made’ (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to
compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to
respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the
partnership understandings.”

Herman De Wael:

>What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain
>“correctly”. OK.

Richard Hills:

No, un-OK. Herman’s weak attempted paraphrase of “not contrary”
ain’t synonymous with the strong command “overriding requirement”.

Herman De Wael:

>What it does not say is that it wrong to explain “consistently”.
>Yes, there is a requirement to complain “correctly”. So if a player
>fails to do that, he shall be subject to the MI laws. But THAT’S ALL.

Richard Hills:

“That’s All Folks”? Not so.

Unintentionally infracting the MI Laws is merely an infraction of Law
20 / Law 40 / Law 75.
But intentionally infracting the MI Laws is additionally an infraction
of the “must not” Law 72B1.

There is no law that says that if you explain “consistently”, you have
failed to give UI, and we shall apply the UI laws to an non-existent
piece of UI.

>I repeat, while the dWS may not be acceptable, according to your
>views, there is no law or regulation which makes it wronger
>.....

Richard Hills:

No, the De Wael school is blatantly wronger. What part of

“There is ++no infraction++ when a correct explanation discloses
that partner’s prior explanation was mistaken.”

does Herman fail to understand? In times past Herman has very
frequently admitted that his DWs approach ++does++ very
intentionally infract the MI Laws and Law 72B1. Of course,
before October 2008, the Lawbook was paradoxically self-
contradictory on this issue, so way back then Herman could argue
with some legitimacy that both approaches were infractions.


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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140424/18567dab/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list