[blml] Your call

[Karel]

I hope I have misunderstood this.  Karel seems to be saying that after
a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then
"even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is
quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'".  Is he really saying
that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and
that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP?

+++ if the Iber's partner takes unusal action over a "smoothly" corrected
call - the NOS should be allowed to question that action.  In reality ESP is
not required.  The human mind is capable of extracting information and
coming to conclusions from numerous sources.  All it takes is a small pause,
an intake of breath, a shift in posture, a glance, a facial expression, a
nervous gesture, a reshuffle of cards, etc etc etc to carry a mountain of
implication.  This mental processing can be easily denied, is generally
circumstancial, yet very effective, impossible to prove and easy to defend
via L27B1(a).  This applies tenfold in established partnerships.


L27B1 specifies only that the IB itself ("the irregularity") carries no
penalty, and that L16C2 does not apply.  It does nothing to preclude
the application of L16A if there is evidence that the IB and/or
correction did convey UI which was subsequently acted upon.

+++ Take the case in question.  The 4H bid over the 2S 3H(corrected
smoothly) 4D might be considered conservative but hardly wacko.  And yet it
is equally clear that a small/grand slam has strong possibilities.  It is
also clear that the 5 level is extremely unliklely to go minus.  So we have
a situation where it is safe to explore for slam or at the very least make a
forward move in safety and yet it didnt happen ??  Why ?

The only evidence we have which is concrete is the subsequent poll.  Over
80% of the pollee's would have bid on to at least the 5 level.  So 80+% of
the IBer's partners peers on a normal auction felt this hand worth at least
a slam try.  And yet the OS , given unusual (but apparently "smoothly"
covered) circumstances, decided to go low and yet this all seems perfectly
normal ?  How did Hamlet put it ... "there is something rotten in the state
of Denmark ...".

I would think the onus should be the other way.  The OS should be made
defend why they didn't proceed in a normal fashion, should have the onus of
proof on them to demonstrate that the corrected call did not effect their
actions in any way and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the NOS
where its unclear.


Karel