[blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 29/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Steve Willner:
>
> >>The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in
> >>partner's suit, which he has previously supported.  What
> >>bid could he have been thinking of that would have been
> >>weaker?
>
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> >He may not have been thinking of any bid.
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Get Smart.  The old "may not have been thinking" trick.
> Would you believe that partner was wondering about where
> they parked their car?
>
> Missed it by that much.
>
> As Director I would rule partner's _actual_ thoughts not
> relevant to the ruling.  What is relevant is what, on the
> balance of probabilities, is _demonstrably suggested_ by
> the unauthorised information from partner.
>

There is no point in the laws having "demonstably suggested" if you
are going to use a 'balance of probabilities' arguement.  Either the
bid is demonstably suggested or it is not.  It doesn't make any sense
to me to rule against someone because the break in tempo 'might have
suggested' some action when obviously and alternatively it might not
have suggested that alternative.

In this particular case in a complex auction I will usually think for
longer than usual even when it turns out after I have processed the
information that I have only one possible action.  Thinking in that
type of situation does not and can not demonstably suggest one action
over another.  It merely suggests that I needed extra time to process
an unusual or unfamiliar situation.

Wayne