[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Ed Reppert]
> Ah, I see it now. Would *anyone* at that level
> of play lead a heart or a spade, or cash the
> club ace and then lead a heart or a spade?
[nige1]
I guess yes but don't have play records.
[Ed]
> That's three questions. :-) My answers:
> (i) [The minimum circumstantial evidence
> needed] is a Matter of judgement.
[nige1]
The whole idea is to produce borderline rulings to
refine the judgement of directors.
[Ed]
> (ii) No [you should not take into account the
> standing of the alleged law-breakers].
> (iii) So, [how  to do so] is not applicable.
> I do take into account my judgement as to the
> honesty of the parties - and I have no reason
> to question the honesty of that pair. If I
> were presented with evidence of dishonesty, I
> might have a reason -> depending on my
> evaluation of the evidence.
> IMO, this is not a borderline ruling.

[nige1]
Contemporary commentators mostly agreed with Ed
that there was no case to answer. Although a few
regarded it as borderline. It was Richard Hills
who insisted on discussing this real-life example.

My original made-up example was intended to be
[slightly] more suspicious. But it was only a
*suggestion*.

I would be delighted if any BLMLer can suggest a
better example that most players would regard as
border-line. And surely there are many other laws
that rely heavily on "judgement", that could be
clarified with such borderline practical examples.

IMO, including such examples in the rule-book
would help players and directors.

I offer and prefer to get constructive criticism
although I accept that destructive criticism
requires less thought. Anyway, it would be a
welcome change to receive some.