[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Grattan Endicott]
> +=+ ** This [The defenders are a married
> couple] 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.

[nige1]
I agree with Grattan that the circumstantial
evidence indicates that the defenders successful
employed an undisclosed agreement.

[A] Suppose (for the sake of argument) that you
deem the evidence just sufficient to rule against
a *stranger* (if you deem the evidence too flimsy
then strengthen it).

[B] Now suppose the alleged offender is a *high
standing official*. Say a billionaire member of
the ACBL law committee. Would you require more (or
less) evidence?

[C] Now suppose that, from long acquaintance with
the alleged offender, you know him to be honest
and truthful. Again would you require more
evidence? If he were also a friend, would you ever
rule against him?

IMO, *Justice should be blind* to status and
reputation. All three cases should attract the
same initial ruling.

Only when it comes to "punishment" should
"previous offences" be taken into account. In the
case of a player with a track record of
dishonesty, perhaps an additional procedural
penalty may be appropriate.