[blml] Borderline rulings

[Guthrie]

Even if the rules were as objective, simple,
clear, and complete as possible, examples of
borderline rulings would still help directors,

Unfortunately, many directors and law-makers seem
to prefer incomplete sophisticated obfuscatory
subjective laws, that over-rely on the director's
judgement.

This means that borderline test-case decisions
will become absolutely essential components of
rule-books. For example

[A] "Encrypted" signals (i) If you learn of
declarer's 4 card major via Stayman, then you may
use the information when signalling (ii) but if
defenders learn that declarer is void in a suit
then they may not use their knowledge of each
others' holdings to make life hard for declarer
(iii) no restrictions on using such knowledge
apply to declarer (because he is not signalling)

[B] Dodgy Claims: If an International Player loses
the place and makes a faulty claim where the best
expert line would be successful, then the claim
will be upheld if that kind of play is described
by Clyde Love or George Coffin but rejected if it
appears only in works by Geza Ottlik.

[C] Rule of 18 opening (EBU). David Probst, Tim
West-Meads, David Stevenson and other directors
could provide borderline examples where their
judgement over-rides simple arithmetic. Cases
where, if you turned a six into a five, then the
opening bid would suddenly become illegal.

[D] Concealed understandings: Your notes describe
the double of a club splinter as asking for a
diamond lead. You are vulnerable against not. RHO
opens 1S, LHO splinters 4C and partner doubles.
You don't alert but when opponents reach a slam,
you find the killing diamond lead. You and partner
both claim that double of 4C just shows clubs.

This example is based on a real case where the
director ruled against the slam-bidders and the
appeals committee condemned their appeal.
Paradoxically, I believe that had they asked the
putative offenders, they would both agree with me
that they should have been ruled against.
(Because, although this pair may well have been
innocent, the balance of probability was firmly
against them, so, IMO, this ruling sent a wrong
message).

Anyway, if a ruling should depend on previous
reputation, or the position of the putative
offenders in the Bridge Hierarchy, then the rules
should specify how *with borderline examples*.

Please suggest other laws and rules which would
benefit from examples of borderline rulings.