[blml] Online Bridge

[Herman De Wael]

Tim West-Meads wrote:
> 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.
> 

Precisely. My point is that we don't need to create an artificial 
distinction between CPU and MI in order to deal with deliberately 
trying to conceal illegal conventions.

> 
>>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.
> 

You are correct - because you are only dealing with the problem of 
cheating. Steve however, wants to deal with the problem not just out 
of a concept of cheating, but also out of a concept of having to rule 
differently.

> 
>>(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.
> 

I was directing the comment about mind reading not specifically at 
you, Tim.

> 
>>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).
> 

Then we are in complete agreement, and I apologize for calling the 
second position yours. Steve seems to be the one most behind this 
second position.

> 
>>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
> 

But if you believe the concealment to be deliberate - how do you rule?
MI and redress for damage plus an additional PP for the concealment?
Then we agree.
But I'm afraid Steve doesn't.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be