[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Steve Willner]

> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> The next question is whether the ACBL
> Appeals Committee needed any
> _objective_ evidence to distinguish
> between:
> 
> (a) a player who forgotten their
> methods, but is reminded of their
> methods by partner's alert, and
> 
> (b) a player who is fully aware of
> their methods, but has intentionally
> deviated from them, so has no UI
> from partner's alert.

This is a bridge judgement, and the AC can use whatever evidence it 
finds sufficient.  I personally would need substantial evidence indeed 
to rule a.  Except behind screens, one of the substantial risks of 
psyching is that partner's explanations may make your planned followup 
illegal.

> Details of the actual table result
> and actual appeal ->

Why did no one discuss "suggested over another?"  Suppose you believe 
the 4S bidder (who holds a strong hand, not a weak preempt) has 
forgotten NAMYATS and was reminded by partner's alert (UI).  Why does 
that suggest 6S over double?  The director asserts that it does but 
gives no reason.

The committee seems to be addressing some kind of MI issue, not the 
actual issue of UI.  (Note to Ed Reppert: the "points of law" here are 
that this is a UI ruling, which involves "logical alternatives" and 
"suggested over another."  _How_ to rule depends on bridge judgment.)