[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
************************************
"In this imperfect world we have no
guarantee of justice. The nearest 
we have contrived is the perception 
of justice among our peers. This is 
the foundation of the jury and we 
should defend it as powerfully as 
we may."
 -----------------------------------------------
+=+ **This qualifies as 'partnership experience' in 
my book.** 
        But seriously, when a player bases his action 
on an item of knowledge which he shares with his 
partner (but which is not incorporated within their 
discussed and announced system and is not widely 
accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the 
partner subsequently acts in conformity with that 
action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in 
my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding 
revealed by the synchronized actions of the players. 
In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership 
made use of extraneous information - not that the 
1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement
that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts.
                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+
                                           

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Guthrie wrote:
> 
> > 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.**
> 
> Hm. Did declarer present this book as evidence to
>  the TD or in the appeal? Presumably he mentioned 
> it at one point. What did the alleged author say?
>