[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Never laugh at live dragons."
                     'The Hobbit'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations


> > >
 
> You cannot consistently say that balance of 
> probabilities is used and then use a regulation 
> that allows for no judgement.
> 
> The EBU requires a determination of red 
> psyche when both partner's psyche on the 
> same hand - there is no latitude to determine 
> 'balance of probabilities'.
> 
+=+ Where, Wayne, do you see such a statement 
in the OB? The OB does say that the actions of a
psycher's partner following the psyche may provide 
evidence of an illegal partnership understanding, and
sufficiently so without requiring proof of intent. That 
is guidance on the conclusions that may be drawn 
from circumstantial evidence. The OB does say that
the Director will so find if he considers the subsequent 
action of the partner "appears to allow for" the psyche.
       The judgement of the evidence is in the hands of
the Director. When both partners psyche on the same 
hand the Director has to judge whether the second 
psyche is prompted by illegal recognition of the first,
whether it 'allows for it'. If you read Section 6 of the 
OB thoroughly you will find that is made up of 
guidance for the Director in  judging circumstantial 
evidence from the players' actions subsequent to a 
psyche. The Director is assessing the strength of the
evidence of collusive action and he categorizes his
findings as Green, Amber, or Red, according to his 
assessment. It is, of course, best practice to consult
in judgemental matters. 
      And: when a psyche, misbid or deviation, is 
reported it is the subsequent action of the partner that 
is in question and he is given opportunity (OB 6C2) to 
explain his subsequent action(s) in writing on the report 
form. A bridge judgement has to be made about any 
such explanation when classifying the occurrence. The 
relevant section of the OB uses 'may' not 'shall' or 
'must'; only when the Director has judged the question 
does the OB tell him what to do in consequence of his 
judgement.  Also, in the White Book he is told to take
experienced opponents' view into account in his 
classification if they say they do not think the psyche 
has been fielded. 
                         ~ Grattan ~  +=+