[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
>   For the player who has knowingly psyched it
> is not logical to believe that he has misbid.

Unfortunately, this is useful only if you can read minds.

> The *risk* is that a TD/AC will *judge* the planned follow-up illegal

Indeed a considerable risk in some positions.

> 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.

Huh?  Why not?  And what UI?  Players typically don't have any UI when 
they decide whether or not to psych.  Sure, if partner has thrown his 
cards down and groaned, "Another rotten hand!" that's UI, and the player 
may be effectively forbidden to psych, but that's a pretty rare occurrence.

The potential psycher's position is vaguely -- not exactly -- analogous 
to a player who takes a long time to decide his own action and in the 
process realizes his partner will be constrained by UI.  In such 
situations, most of us take positive action of some kind, knowing 
partner cannot (for example) pull a slow double.  Are you claiming this 
is illegal?  If so, on what basis?  Operation of Law is AI, as you 
yourself have often argued.

> 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.   

I understand your position, but I'm curious whether other people agree. 
  Wouldn't it be better to say, without demanding possibly incriminating 
testimony, "We can't tell whether you psyched or misbid, but we have to 
rule on the basis of misbid."