[blml] Chicago Cases Posted

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> I was talking about cases where partner has alerted/explained.  An 
> alert/explanation are always UI

OK, there's the confusion.  I thought you meant for the psych itself, 
which is what I was writing about.

Before I decide to psych, it is wise to consider various risks.  One 
risk is an adverse ruling, which can occur in a number of forms.  Do we 
agree on this idea?

> (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.

Certainly so.  If there is only one LA, there's never any problem.

>  Choosing a different rebid in attempt to avoid an 
> adverse ruling is an action suggested by the UI.

I don't get this at all, though.  For there to be any problem, there 
must be more than one LA.  Now I have UI from partner, and I pick the LA 
that a TD or AC will decide was the legal one -- an attempt to avoid an 
adverse ruling.  Isn't that what I'm supposed to do?

> The difference here is that one's *own* BIT is AI to oneself (as is the 
> operation of law).

Right.  So is my true system if I've psyched.

> 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 

BLML discussed this exact question several years ago.  My recollection 
is that the conclusion was the opposite: you _must_ take into account 
that partner's action was clear-cut.  It is AI because of "operation of 
law."  I believe Linda Trent was the one who presented the reasoning.

Perhaps we should examine the archive and revisit this question.

> 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.  

That seems over-broad to me.  After most psychs, there won't be more 
than one LA, and in cases where there are more than one, usually 
partner's accurate explanation won't suggest one over another.  But yes, 
certain rare types of psychs will be banned except behind screens.  I 
don't like it, but the alternative seems worse to me.

> It's the TDs job to establish the facts and the 
> difference between a psych and a misbid is a fundamental fact.

The problem is that this "fundamental fact" requires mind reading.  My 
opinion on that is well known, so I won't belabor it.