[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Tim West-Meads]

John wrote:

> >When a player has psyched in this way the UI simply *cannot* make 
> the >planned follow-up illegal. 
> 
> The UI cannot make a planned follow-up illegal? It can in every other 
> circumstance; it is likely to be rarer in the case of a psych, but I 
> don't think this blanket rule is correct.

In cases where one has various plans following a psych UI may indeed 
suggest one alternative over another (as it always can) but if one has 
decided to walk the dog one may not decide to leave it in the park after 
receiving UI.  Put another way the LAs for a player who knows he has 
psyched are different to those for a player who has become aware of a 
misbid.

>  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.
> 
> Wow. I don't see it - making a bend-over-backwards bid that you think 
> won't work to avoid an adverse UI ruling seems legal to me in all 
> circumstances. Or do I misunderstand you, Tim?

You are trying to avoid the bad score from an adverse ruling - you would 
not consider so doing absent the UI (e.g. behind screens) it's not a 
"bend over backwards" bid (as is normal in UI cases) - it's a wriggle 
bid suggested by the 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.   
> 
> That way lies madness. Using two separate standards for what are 
> essentially the civil remedies (reversal of score) and criminal 
> penalties (expulsion) seems sensible. There are certainly times when 
> the description by the player is dubious; 

If the description by the player is ambiguous (e.g. he doesn't claim to 
have psyched but to have made a judgement that the hand wasn't quite 
worth 4D) then I don't think he has made a clear statement and I can 
simply adjust the score.

> we should rule on a 
> preponderance of the evidence standard for score adjustments, and by 
> a clear and convincing standard for disciplinary action.

Sorry, but if the player, after the consequences have been made very 
clear to him, has made the statement "I knew we were playing NAMYATS but 
I decided to psych." and the adjustment is wholly predicated on the 
falsehood of that statement we cannot allow the deliberate lie to go 
unpunished.  Failing to avoid using UI is a misdemeanour offence and an 
adjustment suffices.  Lies a player tells himself like "I would always 
have bid that way" even when repeated are similar.
Telling deliberate lies to the TD/AC is a serious conduct issue and must 
be the subject of separate, and severe, penalties. 

Tim.