[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 9/25/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
> Likewise, while blml can learn something from impeccably correct
> rulings, blml can learn more from discussion of mistakes by TDs,
> ACs, and casebook panellists.  For example, an instructive error
> was made by 1995 casebook panellist Matthew Granovetter:
>
> >>I agree with the Committee. The truth was that West could have
> >>bet his life his partner had a strong notrump, yet he chose to
> >>Alert it as something else. What is the obligation of a player
> >>who knows his partnership's understanding but also was 99%
> >>confident that his partner forgot? I think Active Ethics means
> >>telling the truth, even if that isn't the partnership's
> >>understanding.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Where Matthew Granovetter failed the pons asinorum of ethical
> advice is that duplicate bridge ethics (active or otherwise) are
> _defined_ by the duplicate bridge Laws.  While it is conceivable
> that a player's personal ethics may cause that player to choose
> to deliberately infract the Laws, that player should then be
> willing to pay the prescribed procedural penalty for such
> infraction.  Hence I disagree with the dissenting opinion of the
> Appeals Committee chair.
>
> Bill Passell:
>
> >East announced that misinformation had been given before the
> >opening lead in an attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage
> >did not occur because of this announcement. I do not believe
> >that this situation should be penalized automatically. A
> >reprimand for East would have been sufficient in this case.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> In my opinion, the criterion for a procedural penalty after a
> non-damaging infraction should not be the _motives_ of the
> infractor, but the _knowledge_ of the infractor.  If East had
> been a bunny who was unaware of the existence of Law 75D2, then
> I agree that an educative reprimand would have been the
> appropriate procedural penalty.
>
> But since East was playing in the Life Master Pairs partnering a
> well-known ACBL expert, then East knew or should have known (or
> his partner should have informed him) about the Laws in general
> and about Law 75D2 in particular.  Since either East deliberately
> infracted Law, or East recklessly infracted Law, in order to
> satisfy East's personal ethics, then that standard procedural
> penalty of a matchpoint fine was, in my opinion, the only correct
> decision that this Appeals Committee made.
>

A premise in this post confuses me---it even seems wrong.  If a pair
states that X is their agreement, is the director required to find
that X is their agreement?  No, the director investigates and decides
what the agreements are.

What if the pair has a beautiful typeset page saying that X is their
agreement?  Must the director find that X is their agreement no matter
what other evidence is present?  Again, I think not.

What you say is your agreement might be unduly influenced by a piece a
paper.  You might have typeset that X is your agreement, but if you
are certain that your partner will not remember that you wanted to
play X, or if you forgot to mention that X is now in the system notes,
then I would say that the director should find that X is not your
agreement.  If you know that your partner will assume Y, then I think
it is clear that the correct information is that Y is your agreement,
regardless of what is in your system notes.

That is the way I read Matthew Granovetter's comments.  From the
director's standpoint, the agreement is not always what is written on
a piece of paper---rather, it is what meanings you know that your
partner is going to use when he calls.

Jerry Fusselman