[blml] Clarification...

[Eric Landau]

On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Nigel wrote:

> I advocate slightly different and much more controversial rules...
>
> [A] If, like Alain and Sven, you *never* allow for partner's psych,
> then it is so hard to prove a concealed partnership understanding,
> that I would declassify the psych into an ordinary call, ignoring any
> damage inflicted on opponents.
>
> That is, I would consider only *fielded* psychs.
>
> [B] As in the case of most Bridge rules, I think a director must rule
> whether of not a psych was fielded on the *balance of probability*.
>
> Evidence from a single board may suffice. (Cries of "rule of
> coincidence" and shrieks of protest from the ACBL).

That might just be a workable approach to the problem, although  
"slightly different" seems like a gross underbid.  It could mean that  
we could recognize the unqualified right to psych that is granted  
under the most straightforward (if far from the extant)  
interpretation of L40A, while leaving ourselves with necessary tools  
to control potential abuses, which sounds like an ideal balance.

And we would not need any new principles of bridge jurisprudence.   
Knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies would never in itself  
constitute an infraction, but it would be illegal to choose a call  
suggested over its LAs by that knowledge, subject to redress, with  
the NOS getting the "benefit of the doubt".  Sound familiar?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net