[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Tim West-Meads]

Steve wrote:

> > 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.

I was talking about cases where partner has alerted/explained.  An 
alert/explanation are always UI (albeit we almost never deem that UI to 
suggest an action when it merely confirms what the player appears to 
know).  If playing behind screens one would not know about any 
alert/explanation and would make ones rebid on that basis - if there is 
only one logical rebid with screens there is only one logical rebid 
without screens.  Choosing a different rebid in attempt to avoid an 
adverse ruling is an action suggested by the UI.

> 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?

The difference here is that one's *own* BIT is AI to oneself (as is the 
operation of law).  Consider instead where partner has bid on after a 
slow pass by me.  Now it is illegal for me to base a *subsequent* call on 
the knowledge that partner's action is clear-cut rather than marginal 
because doing so would be using partner's knowledge of my hesitation.

> > 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."

Honest players won't incriminate themselves.  If cheats wish to 
self-incriminate I'm going to let them (I might not catch them the first 
time they try it but I'll hammer them like hell when I do catch them).  
If we routinely rule a misbid rather than a psych then we may as well 
ban psyching.  It's the TDs job to establish the facts and the 
difference between a psych and a misbid is a fundamental fact.

Tim