Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

Law 12B1, second sentence:

"Damage exists when, ++because++ of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not
occurred - but see C1(b)."

The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The
infraction caused West to have more information. The
more information caused West to decide to bid 4 Spades
rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4
Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to
get a worse score.
If you don't use "because" in this situation, you are never
going to use it.
.....

Richard Hills:

Yes and No. I do not use "because" in this situation, but I
rule "because" applies in many other situations.

In the above hypothetical it was not the infraction which
"caused" West to be unlucky. Rather, North-South created
Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West
could use at her own risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky.
C'est la vie.

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film):

"If ever, oh ever a wiz there was, The Wizard of Oz is one
because. Because, because, because, because, because."

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


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

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:38:44 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL

“Damage exists when, ++because++ of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not
occurred – but see C1(b).”

Post by Richard James HILLS
The causal chain is intact. There was an infraction. The
infraction caused West to have more information. The
more information caused West to decide to bid 4 Spades
rather than linger in 3 Spades. The decision to bid 4
Spades instead of lingering in 3 Spades caused EW to
get a worse score.
If you don’t use “because” in this situation, you are never
going to use it.
.....

Yes and No. I do not use “because” in this situation, but I
rule “because” applies in many other situations.
In the above hypothetical it was not the infraction which
“caused” West to be unlucky. Rather, North-South created
Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West
could use at her own risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky.
C’est la vie.

Hi Richard. This is a sophisticated analysis of causality. I like it. Most
other blmler's are doing their own sophisticated analyses and coming up
with the same ruling.

I was just looking in the laws and I didn't see where it said players use
AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn't find
it.

There is a small technical problem. If someone wanted to rule otherwise,
they would agree that the infraction did not cause West to be *unlucky*,
but the infraction did cause West to have *a worse score*. That's kind of
what I meant when I said the causal chain is intact. Something breaks
down, but it isn't the causal chain.

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

.....
I was just looking in the Laws and I didn’t see where it said players use
AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn’t find it.
.....

Law 73D1, final sentence:

“Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk.”

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


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

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:05:52 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL
.....
I was just looking in the Laws and I didn’t see where it said players use
AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn’t find it.
.....

“Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk.”

This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner. So
it would be useless for this case.

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
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
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

Post by Robert Frick

.....
I was just looking in the Laws and I didn't see where it said players
use AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just couldn't
find it.
.....

Law 73D1, final sentence:

"Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk."

Post by Robert Frick
This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner.
So it would be useless for this case.

Richard Hills:

Another philosopher who believes in the uselessness of everything is
the Muskrat.

Tove Jansson, Comet in Moominland:

"I am Muskrat. Not that it matters. But the bridge you built has
destroyed my home by the river. Of course - it is insignificant for a
philosopher whether he lives or dies - but having caught a cold it is un-
certain what will happen to me..."

Richard Hills:

But in my opinion the above Law 73D1 sentence is instead a Useful
indicative example guiding almost all rulings on use-of-AI

Because, Because, Because

the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI
are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also
DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton.

Best wishes,

Richard James Hills

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


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

[Robert Frick]

So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when
the AI is "deceptive". That's the same as "wrong". Correct?

So if dummy says "I have a singleton club", and he does have a singleton
club, you are saying that the laws say there is no rectification.

But if the dummy says "I have a singleton club" and doesn't, then
rectification might occur (other conditions being met).

I really wish you were right.


On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:13:42 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL

.....
I was just looking in the Laws and I didn’t see where it said players
use AI at their own risk. I agree it should be that way, I just
couldn’t
find it.
.....

“Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk.”

Post by Richard James HILLS
This refers only to variations from steady tempo and unvarying manner.
So it would be useless for this case.

Another philosopher who believes in the uselessness of everything is
the Muskrat.
“I am Muskrat. Not that it matters. But the bridge you built has
destroyed my home by the river. Of course - it is insignificant for a
philosopher whether he lives or dies - but having caught a cold it is un-
certain what will happen to me...”
But in my opinion the above Law 73D1 sentence is instead a Useful
indicative example guiding almost all rulings on use-of-AI
Because, Because, Because
the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI
are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also
DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton.
Best wishes,
Richard James Hills
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
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960):

He was taken to a room in the sprawling Department of Justice. The room
was called the Kangaroo Court, in honor of ancient Anglo-Saxon judicial
proceeding. Across the hall from it, also of antique derivation, was the
Star Chamber. Just past that was the Court of Last Appeal.

The Kangaroo Court was divided in half by a high wooden screen, for it
was fundamental to Omegan justice that the accused should not see his
judge nor any of the witnesses against him.

Post by Robert Frick

Post by Richard James HILLS
.....
Because, Because, Because
the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI
are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also
DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton.

So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when
the AI is “deceptive”. That’s the same as “wrong”. Correct?
.....

Richard Hills:

A manifestly incorrect attempt at a rhetorical question. Unintentionally
wrong does not equal intentionally deceptive.

Read the fine Law book! In particular these criteria: Law 73D2’s “attempt
to mislead” and “purposeful deviation” plus Law 73F’s “no demonstrable
bridge reason”.

Post by Robert Frick
So if [declarer] says “I have a singleton club”, and he does have a
singleton club, you are saying that the laws say there is no rectification.
.....

Richard Hills

No, with the possible exception of trick one, declarer is required to play
her singletons promptly. Declarer may not echelon her hesitations by
hesitating with no problem at trick four in order to conceal a future trick
six problem.

Law 73D1, first sentence:

“It is desirable, though not always required [i.e. sometimes required], for
players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.”

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


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

[Robert Frick]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:05:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL

He was taken to a room in the sprawling Department of Justice. The room
was called the Kangaroo Court, in honor of ancient Anglo-Saxon judicial
proceeding. Across the hall from it, also of antique derivation, was the
Star Chamber. Just past that was the Court of Last Appeal.
The Kangaroo Court was divided in half by a high wooden screen, for it
was fundamental to Omegan justice that the accused should not see his
judge nor any of the witnesses against him.

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
.....
Because, Because, Because
the only Laws specifically permitting an adjusted score after use-of-AI
are Law 73D2 and consequently Law 73F. That is, when the AI is also
DI (Deceptive Information), for example hesitating with a singleton.

So, according to you, the laws say that there is rectification only when
the AI is “deceptive”. That’s the same as “wrong”. Correct?
.....

A manifestly incorrect attempt at a rhetorical question. Unintentionally
wrong does not equal intentionally deceptive.
Read the fine Law book! In particular these criteria: Law 73D2’s “attempt
to mislead” and “purposeful deviation” plus Law 73F’s “no demonstrable
bridge reason”.

Post by Richard James HILLS
So if [declarer] says “I have a singleton club”, and he does have a
singleton club, you are saying that the laws say there is no
rectification.
.....

Richard Hills
No, with the possible exception of trick one, declarer is required to play
her singletons promptly. Declarer may not echelon her hesitations by
hesitating with no problem at trick four in order to conceal a future trick
six problem.
“It is desirable, though not always required [i.e. sometimes required], for
players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.”
UNOFFICIAL

What about when the AI is correct? Then is it always used at the player's
own risk?

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

Post by Robert Frick
What about when the AI is correct?
Then is it always used at the player’s own risk?

Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002:

+=+ Please consider this:

Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan,
Oct 8, 1989.

Dear Mr Krishnan,

Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling
in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer
explained to her screenmate, who would be the
opening leader, that her response to Exclusion
Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed
hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as
correctly explained on the other side of the screen
actually promised zero (or three) aces by
partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening
leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would
have defeated the contract.

It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was
wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told
the number of aces in declarer’s hand, so what harm
was done? That reasoning may be common sense
but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may
require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she
holds, but bridge law requires something quite
different: declarer must give her opponent an
accurate explanation of the partnership agreement.
She didn’t. Of course it is inevitable that a player
who forgets her agreement behind a screen will
break the law by giving a mistaken explanation.
She will be morally blameless, since she explains in
all honesty and good faith, but what the law
demands of the explanation is not good faith, the
law demands accuracy.

Declarer’s inaccurate though honest explanation
was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough
to determine the director’s ruling, since information
about aces obviously might affect the decision
whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee’s
ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely
unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that
the opening lead would have been different had the
opening leader been given the accurate explanation
(no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate
explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was
far from convinced that the one-ace explanation
would have induced the singleton lead (had it been
convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six
down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a
small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the
Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps,
“average plus” to the innocent team.

Note that the strange circumstances of this case
arose only because of a screen procedure, where a
player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd
requirement that she give an accurate explanation
of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The
closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens,
is the position in which you know that your partner
has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four
clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart
opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you
hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is
obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the
agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.
First though, your right-hand opponent asks about
the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be “Strong
four hearts opening with a very good heart suit”. That
is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your
partnership agreement, not your partner’s hand. That
legal obligation remains the same when, behind
screens, you must explain your own action.

I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you.

Sincerely,
Edgar Kaplan.
Oct. 8th 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------
~ Grattan ~
+=+

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


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

[Robert Frick]

Hi Richard. You argued that players use AI at their own risk.
("North-South created
Authorised Information (AI) for East-West which West could use at her own
risk. Sometimes use of AI is unlucky.") You cited laws; you asked me to
read the laws; etc. etc.

Now I ask if players use AI at their own risk, and you don't answer. And
if understand the point of your post, you now want to answer no?



On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL
What about when the AI is correct?
Then is it always used at the player’s own risk?

Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan,
Oct 8, 1989.
Dear Mr Krishnan,
Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling
in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer
explained to her screenmate, who would be the
opening leader, that her response to Exclusion
Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed
hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as
correctly explained on the other side of the screen
actually promised zero (or three) aces by
partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening
leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would
have defeated the contract.
It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was
wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told
the number of aces in declarer’s hand, so what harm
was done? That reasoning may be common sense
but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may
require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she
holds, but bridge law requires something quite
different: declarer must give her opponent an
accurate explanation of the partnership agreement.
She didn’t. Of course it is inevitable that a player
who forgets her agreement behind a screen will
break the law by giving a mistaken explanation.
She will be morally blameless, since she explains in
all honesty and good faith, but what the law
demands of the explanation is not good faith, the
law demands accuracy.
Declarer’s inaccurate though honest explanation
was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough
to determine the director’s ruling, since information
about aces obviously might affect the decision
whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee’s
ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely
unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that
the opening lead would have been different had the
opening leader been given the accurate explanation
(no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate
explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was
far from convinced that the one-ace explanation
would have induced the singleton lead (had it been
convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six
down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a
small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the
Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps,
“average plus” to the innocent team.
Note that the strange circumstances of this case
arose only because of a screen procedure, where a
player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd
requirement that she give an accurate explanation
of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The
closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens,
is the position in which you know that your partner
has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four
clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart
opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you
hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is
obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the
agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.
First though, your right-hand opponent asks about
the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be “Strong
four hearts opening with a very good heart suit”. That
is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your
partnership agreement, not your partner’s hand. That
legal obligation remains the same when, behind
screens, you must explain your own action.
I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you.
Sincerely,
Edgar Kaplan.
Oct. 8th 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------
~ Grattan ~
+=+
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
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roger Pewick]

I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.

To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose. The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling.

regards
roger pewick

[David Grabiner]

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf

doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5
KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a
psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if
East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid.
North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is
likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And
the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what
the TD and AC ruled.)

Post by Roger Pewick
The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling.

Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I
believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust
accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking
up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to
psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when
double would give +450 or +500.

But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural
penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he
did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational
absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI.

Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or
1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for
a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Funny, if an opponent of mine used the "justification" that "when the
vulnerable opponents voluntarily bid to 4H, [I] decided that [my]
partner must have psyched," then I'm thinking this is prima facie
evidence of a CPU. I bit of Bayesian reasoning shows that---there are
three other players at the table, distribution can be wild, people
make mistakes. A 3 VP penalty seems too small to me if North is
experienced. He should learn to avoid that kind of thinking. As
Nigel might ask here, how many times did North get away with such
things? Even with a 3 VP penalty, North is probably still ahead of
the game with this ability to divine when partner has psyched, whether
based on experience or mannerisms. CPU is clear. North's is not a
minor offense.

Jerry Fusselman

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, David Grabiner

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5
KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a
psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if
East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid.
North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is
likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And
the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what
the TD and AC ruled.)

Post by Roger Pewick
The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling.

Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I
believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust
accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking
up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to
psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when
double would give +450 or +500.
But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural
penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he
did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational
absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI.
Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or
1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for
a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Roger Pewick]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Grabiner" <***@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 09:32
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>
Subject: Re: [BLML] 1984

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5
KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a
psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if
East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid.
North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is
likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes.
(And
the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what
the TD and AC ruled.)

Post by Roger Pewick
The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling.

Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I
believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust
accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking
up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to
psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when
double would give +450 or +500.
But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural
penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he
did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational
absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI.
Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or
1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for
a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood.

The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not
of an [discloseable] agreement.

The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows:

"The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H
since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H."


My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW
assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would
maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being
told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't,
then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing.

regards
roger pewick

[David Grabiner]

Post by Roger Pewick

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched."

The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not
of an [discloseable] agreement.
"The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H
since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H."

The knowledge that West needs is not the fact that South psyched, but exactly
what South psyched on.

The auction was (1D)-1H-(1S)-4H-AP. West knew that N-S had 15 HCP, and had nine
spades and two hearts between them. West needed to play a club suit of T32 in
hand opposite KQ95 in dummy for one loser, or to lose two clubs but no diamonds
on an endplay. North led a club on the first round, and the CK held. Declarer
eliminated spades (West played the SA, leaving only 11 HCP for South, who had a
doubleton heart) then led another club from hand, losing the C9 to South's
doubleton jack; he would have made if he had played the CQ instead.

If South has a doubleton club and the DK, it doesn't matter what West does; if
South's doubleton club wins the second round of the suit, South is endplayed.
If South has a doubleton club and no DK, or if South has three clubs, West has
to guess whether South has the ace or the jack.

The strongest hands South can have at this point are QTxx xx KJTxx Ax (which is
still a bit light for most players) or Qxx xx KJTxx AJx (also a bit light unless
the CJ was mixed in with the spades), and if South has either of those hands,
West will make whether he plays the CQ or C9 on this trick because South is
endplayed. If South doesn't have that, then he can't have a legitimate opening;
Qxx xx KJTxx Axx is the strongest hand South can have on which the play matters.
Therefore, West could play under the assumption that South has psyched, with or
without evidence of a CPU.

I wouldn't dismiss West's allegation out of hand, as it isn't a serious error to
play an opponent to have overbid by 2 HCP on a hand otherwise consistent with
the auction. West has to decide whether it is more likely that South miscounted
his points with a 10-count, or that South psyched (with either Jxx of clubs, or
Jx of clubs and no DK; presumably, South would not psyche in first seat with the
CA on the side).

Post by Roger Pewick
My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW
assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would
maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being
told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't,
then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing.

And the analysis above shows that the two claims may be independent.

[Timothy N. Hill]

The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement.
"The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H."
My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing.

The laws to consider are 16B (extraneous info from partner), 40C (“Deviation from System and Psychic Action”), and 47E (play based on misinfo). My reading of the writeup is that the director and the review panel:

* did not apply 16B because, although it’s possible responder’s pass was illegally influenced by UI from opener and not just, as he claimed, by AI from opponents, the director and the panel apparently didn’t feel there was enough evidence to reach that conclusion,

* did not apply 47E because they concluded that even if declarer knew that responder thought that opener had psyched, and therefore knew that responder might have passed with a 14-count, declarer still wouldn’t possess enough information to place the CA in responder’s hand rather than opener’s, and

* did adjust the score and issue a severe procedural penalty under 40C, which (as quoted in the writeup) says “If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.”

Tim

[Timothy N. Hill]

The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement.
"The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H."
My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing.

The laws to consider are 16B (extraneous info from partner), 40C (“Deviation from System and Psychic Action”), and 47E (play based on misinfo). My reading of the writeup is that the director and the review panel:

* did not apply 16B because, although it’s possible responder’s pass was illegally influenced by UI from opener and not just, as he claimed, by AI from opponents, the director and the panel apparently didn’t feel there was enough evidence to reach that conclusion,

* did not apply 47E because they concluded that even if declarer knew that responder thought that opener had psyched, and therefore knew that responder might have passed with a 14-count, declarer still wouldn’t possess enough information to place the CA in responder’s hand rather than opener’s, and

* did adjust the score and issue a severe procedural penalty under 40C, which (as quoted in the writeup) says “If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.”

Tim

[Herman De Wael]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by David below, especially
regarding the level of the penalty.
OK, we may conclude that North fielded the psyche. But I've read the
Lawbook again and again, and I've never seen those words in there.
There can be many reasons why a player fields a psyche:
1) he sees in his hand that someone has severely overbid. He knows the
psyching tendencies of partner, and perhaps of opponents. He acts
accordingly. Nothing is wrong, except the the psyching frequency of
partner may not have been communicated to opponents.
2) he guesses that partner has psyched, and is prepared to be proven
wrong. Nothing is wrong again, except perhaps the psyching frequency
which may be higher than normal, making it more likely that opponents
are misinformed.
3) he sees from partners demeanour that he has psyched. This is use of UI.
It is up to the TD and AC to determine which one it is. My guess is this
was a case 1, so no PP ought to have been given.
Herman.

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after the
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing his
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting] that
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents voluntarily
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had AQ984 5
KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not expecting a
psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart fit; if
East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have his bid.
North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he pulls to is
likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes. (And
the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which is what
the TD and AC ruled.)

Post by Roger Pewick
The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts the
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the ruling.

Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand, I
believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust
accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North picking
up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to
psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200 when
double would give +450 or +500.
But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A procedural
penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that what he
did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be irrational
absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI.
Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3 IMPs or
1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed even for
a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Laval Du Breuil]

Laval DuBreuil is dead March 10.
Wife. Nathalie Lachance

Post by Herman De Wael
I agree with the sentiments expressed by David below, especially
regarding the level of the penalty.
OK, we may conclude that North fielded the psyche. But I've read the
Lawbook again and again, and I've never seen those words in there.
1) he sees in his hand that someone has severely overbid. He knows the
psyching tendencies of partner, and perhaps of opponents. He acts
accordingly. Nothing is wrong, except the the psyching frequency of
partner may not have been communicated to opponents.
2) he guesses that partner has psyched, and is prepared to be proven
wrong. Nothing is wrong again, except perhaps the psyching frequency
which may be higher than normal, making it more likely that opponents
are misinformed.
3) he sees from partners demeanour that he has psyched. This is use of UI.
It is up to the TD and AC to determine which one it is. My guess is this
was a case 1, so no PP ought to have been given.
Herman.

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
I was just going over Dallas Appeal 2 and became very sad.
To wit, at favorable S opens his blizzard and N holding cards any corpse
would rise from the grave to open does not act in pass out seat after

the

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
opponents eagerly bid game. Declarer then accuses N of not disclosing

his

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
agreements and wants the TD to make his contract. North asserts that he
acted upon the deportment and demeanor of the opponents [suggesting]

that

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
his partner was fast and loose.

The appeal write-up, on page 9 of
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2014/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
doesn't say this. "North said that when the vulnerable opponents

voluntarily

Post by David Grabiner
bid to 4H, he decided that his partner must have psyched." North had

AQ984 5

Post by David Grabiner
KJT A764, and the auction was 1D-(1H)-1S-(4H)-P-(P)-? to North. Not

expecting a

Post by David Grabiner
psyche, I would assume that the opponents are bidding on a big heart

fit; if

Post by David Grabiner
East has x Axxxx xx xxxxx, there are enough points for everyone to have

his bid.

Post by David Grabiner
North should double, knowing that partner may pull, and whatever he

pulls to is

Post by David Grabiner
likely to be the right game, while accepting +200 or +500 if he passes.

(And

Post by David Grabiner
the actual South, with four spades, will pull this double to 4S, which

is what

Post by David Grabiner
the TD and AC ruled.)

Post by Roger Pewick
The ruling goes to appeal and the AC ruled
that there was no relevant agreement to disclose..... but still adjusts

the

Post by David Grabiner

Post by Roger Pewick
score as if there was while not stating any evidence to support the

ruling.

Post by David Grabiner
Absent any AI from the E-W behavior showing that East has a strong hand,

I

Post by David Grabiner
believe it is normal to assume that North fielded the psyche, and adjust
accordingly. The ruling is that the play itself shows a CPU (or North

picking

Post by David Grabiner
up on South's manner rather than East's); if North didn't expect South to
psyche, he wouldn't make a pass which was likely to score +100 or +200

when

Post by David Grabiner
double would give +450 or +500.
But the 3VP procedural penalty for North does not look right. A

procedural

Post by David Grabiner
penalty should be imposed against a player who should have known that

what he

Post by David Grabiner
did was wrong (usually someone who has made a call which would be

irrational

Post by David Grabiner
absent UI), and North could have guessed correctly without any UI.
Even if a penalty is appropriate, 3 VP is an unusually severe penalty; 3

IMPs or

Post by David Grabiner
1 VP would be a normal penalty. I don't think I have seen 3VP imposed

even for

Post by David Grabiner
a clear violation such as hesitation Blackwood.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Robert Frick]

The idea of not rectifying is described as"tempting". By this, I think
Kaplan means it is the ruling a director -- trying to be fair and
equitable -- would like to make.

Now we can add logic to this. Kaplan is using the most primitive method of
determining damage. There is a more sophisticated method that applies to
this case. Using the more sophisticated method, there was no damage.

No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this ruling was wrong and
makes the laws look bad.

I am not saying that the laws require making the decision that occurred.
The problem is that the laws contain only the most primitive definition of
damage.



On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL
What about when the AI is correct?
Then is it always used at the player’s own risk?

Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan,
Oct 8, 1989.
Dear Mr Krishnan,
Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling
in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer
explained to her screenmate, who would be the
opening leader, that her response to Exclusion
Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed
hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as
correctly explained on the other side of the screen
actually promised zero (or three) aces by
partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening
leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would
have defeated the contract.
It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was
wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told
the number of aces in declarer’s hand, so what harm
was done? That reasoning may be common sense
but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may
require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she
holds, but bridge law requires something quite
different: declarer must give her opponent an
accurate explanation of the partnership agreement.
She didn’t. Of course it is inevitable that a player
who forgets her agreement behind a screen will
break the law by giving a mistaken explanation.
She will be morally blameless, since she explains in
all honesty and good faith, but what the law
demands of the explanation is not good faith, the
law demands accuracy.
Declarer’s inaccurate though honest explanation
was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough
to determine the director’s ruling, since information
about aces obviously might affect the decision
whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee’s
ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely
unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that
the opening lead would have been different had the
opening leader been given the accurate explanation
(no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate
explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was
far from convinced that the one-ace explanation
would have induced the singleton lead (had it been
convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six
down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a
small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the
Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps,
“average plus” to the innocent team.
Note that the strange circumstances of this case
arose only because of a screen procedure, where a
player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd
requirement that she give an accurate explanation
of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The
closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens,
is the position in which you know that your partner
has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four
clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart
opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you
hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is
obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the
agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.
First though, your right-hand opponent asks about
the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be “Strong
four hearts opening with a very good heart suit”. That
is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your
partnership agreement, not your partner’s hand. That
legal obligation remains the same when, behind
screens, you must explain your own action.
I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you.
Sincerely,
Edgar Kaplan.
Oct. 8th 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------
~ Grattan ~
+=+
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
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Robert Frick]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS

Post by Richard James HILLS
UNOFFICIAL
What about when the AI is correct?
Then is it always used at the player’s own risk?

Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan,
Oct 8, 1989.
Dear Mr Krishnan,
Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling
in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer
explained to her screenmate, who would be the
opening leader, that her response to Exclusion
Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed
hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as
correctly explained on the other side of the screen
actually promised zero (or three) aces by
partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening
leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would
have defeated the contract.
It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was
wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told
the number of aces in declarer’s hand, so what harm
was done? That reasoning may be common sense
but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may
require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she
holds, but bridge law requires something quite
different: declarer must give her opponent an
accurate explanation of the partnership agreement.
She didn’t. Of course it is inevitable that a player
who forgets her agreement behind a screen will
break the law by giving a mistaken explanation.
She will be morally blameless, since she explains in
all honesty and good faith, but what the law
demands of the explanation is not good faith, the
law demands accuracy.
Declarer’s inaccurate though honest explanation
was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough
to determine the director’s ruling, since information
about aces obviously might affect the decision
whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee’s
ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely
unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that
the opening lead would have been different had the
opening leader been given the accurate explanation
(no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate
explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was
far from convinced that the one-ace explanation
would have induced the singleton lead (had it been
convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six
down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a
small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the
Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps,
“average plus” to the innocent team.
Note that the strange circumstances of this case
arose only because of a screen procedure, where a
player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd
requirement that she give an accurate explanation
of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The
closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens,
is the position in which you know that your partner
has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four
clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart
opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you
hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is
obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the
agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.
First though, your right-hand opponent asks about
the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be “Strong
four hearts opening with a very good heart suit”. That
is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your
partnership agreement, not your partner’s hand. That
legal obligation remains the same when, behind
screens, you must explain your own action.

And, if Kaplan was being logical and just finishing his own thought, he
would have added this: When a player says his partner forgot the bid,
there can be rectification for any damage caused by this irregularity.

Which lacks common sense, etc.

Post by Richard James HILLS
I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you.
Sincerely,
Edgar Kaplan.
Oct. 8th 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------
~ Grattan ~
+=+
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
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Richard James HILLS]

UNOFFICIAL

WBF Laws Committee, 8th October 2010, item 8:

The committee agreed that if a player infers from information
given that opponents have had a misunderstanding he is entitled
to use that inference at his own risk. Opponents are entitled only
to correct explanations of opponents’ partnership agreements.

A player who hears partner give an explanation that does not
conform with the partnership understanding is required to offer
the correct explanation at the due time stated in Law 20F5(b).
However if he is uncertain as to what is the correct partnership
understanding he is under no obligation to speak immediately,
the matter then being one to refer for resolution to the Director
at the end of the play under Law 20F6.

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


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