[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 21/01/07, Grattan Endicott <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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?

I went too far here.

What the OB says is ...

"The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche – and,
possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide
evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If
so, then the partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche." OB 6B1

"If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to
allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding" OB 6B2

"A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to
find that it has an unauthorised understanding" OB 6B3

6B2 says that the director *will* treat the suspicious actions as
fielding which 6B1 defines fielding as an illegal understanding.

I cannot see how actions on one board can ever be sufficient evidence.

If the actions were sufficient evidence then no further investigation
would be required. This is contrary to what Grattan is saying where he
believes the director is charged with investigating.

Therefore to me 6B3's statement that the actions from one board may be
sufficient is too strong.  6B2's requiring directors to treat
suspicious actions as illegal understandings (fielding) is also too
strong.  And also contrary to L40A which allows players to make 'any
bid' not based on an understanding.

L40A allows me to make any bid without an understanding but when that
is suspicious OB 6B2 requires the director to rule that I have an
illegal understanding.

That is a circular argument.  As I only have an understanding because
the OB requires it not because I have any real understanding with my
partner.

Wayne