[blml] Online Bridge

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:

> We are not talking in this thread about illegal systems. If a system 
> is illegal, then the law to deal with it is L40D. 

Perhaps.  IMO knowing the system would be illegal provides motive for 
attempting to conceal an agreement.  Thus it is, again IMO, possible for 
a player to contravene *both* L40b and L40d in the same bid.
The adjustment for contravening L40d is largely prescribed (for me) by 
EBU regs.  The additional penalty for concealment is a matter of TD 
discretion.

> So, if a player makes a call, and it is wrongly explained (or 
> whatever), not only are you going to investigate whether the pair did 
> this intentionally 

I generally won't "investigate" for intentionality, I'll have the 
possibility in the back of my mind and take things further only if 
something has raised my suspicions.

>(now _this_ requires mind-reading),

You have me confused with someone else:)  I've got no problem at all 
with requiring "mind-reading" TDs.  Of course I don't think of it as 
"mind-reading".  I think TDs need to listen carefully when the "facts" 
are being explained and assess the truthfulness of the various parties 
and make a judgement as a result.  It's not a skill requirement unique 
to TDs.  Loss adjusters, recruiters, policemen, purchasing managers and 
many other jobs require similar skills.

> but you are 
> also going to make your AS dependent on the result of this 
> investigation?

The adjusted score I award will be based on the likely damage whether I 
think the concealment was active or accidental.  The penalties I impose 
(lots or none) are a different matter.

> So, Tim, you have two possible interpretations:
> -mine, in which CPU and MI are the same;
> -yours, in which there is some difference between the two.

I think my position is that a there is no legal entity of a "CPU".
To me there is MI (common and we adjust for any damage), acts of 
accidental concealment by players who should, IMO, know better (fairly 
rare but a small penalty is in order) and acts of deliberate concealment 
(very rare a large penalty is in order).

> You say this approach has not given you any problems. Could you 
> please then cite one case in which you have ruled CPU

I'm afraid I can't.  Acts of deliberate concealment are sufficiently 
rare that I haven't encountered one when TDing.  Ruling damage from an 
unalerted transfer where transferrer expected his partner to alert is an 
example of a "disclosure" breach of L40b where I have always judged the 
failure to alert accidental and thus never felt the need to rule the 
transfer bid itself illegal (while always believing I have the *option* 
of so doing).  The agreement to transfer was on the CC and in that sense 
"fully and freely available to opponents" so I do see it as a breach of 
L40b rather than L75a. 

Tim