[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Richard Hills]
> Please cite identifying details of the real
> case concerned.  My elephantine memory suggests
> that the real case was an ACBL appeal written
> up in a recent ACBL casebook, but that your
> summary either inadvertently or perhaps
> deliberately ("based on") distorted what
> actually happened in the real case.
> And, of course, in non-distorted real bridge
> it is fully illegal, not borderline illegal,
> to lie about your partnership agreements.

[nige1]
What does your [SEC-UNOFFICIAL] mean, Richard?

As I said in the original post my "borderline
ruling" *is based* on a real case (see "Miami Vice
1996" p 118). I hoped that if I disguised it, then
younger BLMLers might not recognize it.

West  S:KJxx H:85 D- C:QJT8654  P  X  P
North S:Q H:AKQ963 D:T853 C:K2  1H 4N 6H
East  S:T732 H:J D:Q9632 C:A73  P  P  End
South S:A986 H:T742 D:AKJ7 C:9  4C 5H

East led a diamond, defeating the contract.
Declarer had read a book written recently by one
of the defenders that recommended doubling a
splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking
unbid-suit. The defenders are a married couple.
North-South called the director. Defenders denied
playing the convention and it wasn't on their
convention card so the director ruled "no
infraction". North-South appealed but the
Committee upheld the director decision.

I disagree with the decision but that isn't the
point. To help directors judge borderline cases,
law-makers should answer questions like...

"What is the minimum quantity of circumstantial
evidence needed for an adverse ruling?"

"Would it depend on the reputation of the alleged
offenders?"

"If so how?".

And illustrate their conclusions with simple
practical example(s).