[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick

[Guthrie]

[Brian Meadows]

And I do *NOT* agree with Nigel, even though he thinks I do. My
question was a rhetorical one, in response to Herman's post. Nigel
removed the context (Herman's statement), thereby totally changing the
meaning. It's my opinion that a TD *should* assume that a player is
basically truthful *absent* good reason to think otherwise.

I don't know where you play your bridge these days, Nigel, but you 
must have some right bandits in the club. I certainly don't recognise
Reading BC in what you say, unless it's changed beyond all recognition
since I lived in Reading.

[Nige1]

I've been a member of Reading Bridge Club for more than 15 years. We 
have a high standard of play and ethics.

In most National events, however, I suspect some opponents of 
prevarication about their bidding methods but it's hard to be sure. 
For example, I overheard an international pair talking about an 
auction against me. It became obvious that they share an understanding 
about a particular bid although they claimed no agreement at the 
table. I interrupted to ask why they did not tell me what it meant. 
They laughed "We have no agreement -- it is general bridge knowledge 
and experience".

It was like the auction with a "fit-non-jump" and "forcing pass" 
recently discussed on BLML. (It turned out that one bid was a cunning 
psych but that is not the point here). What worries me is that so many 
BLMLers seem to regard both these bids as completely standard and 
unremarkable -- not even requiring an alert!

I have better hard evidence about carding  methods. At National 
congresses, the carding box on the CC of some opponents is incomplete 
and when asked about a card, a defender tells me that it has no 
significance. After the hand, the defensive post-mortem makes it clear 
that it is a signal with an agreed meaning.

The last time this happened, I politely suggested that opponents 
update their CC. When they refused,  I immediately called the 
director, who told opponents to correct their CC but imposed no other 
sanction. Opponents were angry and abusive. The impression I got was 
that, in their bridge-circle, truth economy was the norm, and it was 
considered bad form to enquire about carding. As far as I know, 
opponents didn't alter their CC.

At a local club (NOT Reading) my partner warned me not to complain 
about such incidents, but after several, I ignored his advice and 
called the director.  The director reluctantly redressed the latest 
damage but took me aside afterwards and asked me not to call him again 
in case it caused bad feeling.

Victor Mollo regarded the Bridge table is a microcosm of society at 
large. I agree that there is the same rationalisation and 
prevarication at the Bridge table as away from it. Much goes 
undetected and unproven. Bridge law should recognise this fact and not 
go out of its way to reward and encourage infraction.

For instance, it would be great if TFLB did state explicitly that, as 
a last resort, you could ask a player to explain his own call or play, 
with his partner out of earshot. If that were law, it would rarely 
need to be invoked, because players would then prefer the alternative 
of divulging the meaning of their partner's actions.