[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Tim West-Meads]

Steve wrote:

> > 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.

When a player has psyched in this way the UI simply *cannot* make the 
planned follow-up illegal.  For the player who has knowingly psyched it 
is not logical to believe that he has misbid.  The *risk* is that a TD/AC 
will *judge* the planned follow-up illegal - the player *may not* take 
that risk into account when choosing his call since that risk is purely 
a result of being in possession of UI.

As for evidence - I will normally be satisfied by the clear testimony of 
the player concerned and its consistency with the CC.  Bear in mind that 
if I do not accept that testimony I have no option but to deal with the 
case as deliberate cheating - a player cannot accidently/mistakenly tell 
me that he deliberately psyched and I cannot simply adjust without 
imposing a suitable penalty (disqualification at the least) for telling 
an outright lie.   

 
> > 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.

I suspect the TD didn't consider "suggested over" because his bridge 
skills weren't up to it (no big deal, if his bridge skills were better 
he'd be playing not TDing).  IMO the fact that I have bid 4S forgetting 
I had NAMYATS available or 4S psychic doesn't help me at all in deciding 
whether partner's clubs are good enough to give 6S play.
One assumes that the AC didn't consider "suggested over" because they 
had already decided there was no UI.

Tim.