[blml] almost TD problem

[Ed Reppert]

On Nov 16, 2006, at 3:45 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> WBF regulation.

Interesting. I couldn't find it on the WBF site. Be that as it may,  
such a regulation only applies in WBF events, or other events where  
the SO has adopted the regulation.

>>> The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet
>>>> player).  TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her
>>>> partner had
>>>> passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been
>>>> concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action.
>>>
>>> I suppose TD asked if her partner had hesitated (not "passed").
>>>
>>> Her answer is OK in social bridge, not so acceptable in bridge of
>>> quality.
>>
>> Not okay? Are you assuming she was lying? Or is concentrating on
>> one's cards and planning one's future actions paying insufficient
>> attention to the game?
>
>
> No, I am saying that she was "paying insufficient attention to the  
> game"
> (Law 74B1).

She said she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future  
actions. You say she was paying insufficient attention to the game.  
What else is one to conclude but that doing the former equates to the  
latter? Or must a person who wishes to play bridge be able to both do  
the former *and* pay close attention to everything happening at the  
table?

>> LHO is a cheat, pure and simple. I would treat him as such.
>
> We (almost) never use the word "cheat" in Norway and certainly do  
> not accept
> players to use that word. Ruling without saying comes a long way.

Oh, dear. I've called a spade a spade. How Politically Incorrect!  
Shame on me! I should be shot at dawn!

Pfui.

Note: I did *not* say I would explicitly call this player a cheat in  
making a ruling. I said I would treat him as one. As David G pointed  
out, that means (in the ACBL) he gets at least a 180 day suspension.