[blml] A question of player ability

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************
"Educated people do indeed
speak the same languages;
cultivated ones need not speak
at all."    [Kronenberger]
====================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guthrie" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] A question of player ability


>                                                 I feel that in some 
> contexts, when the
> expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that
> is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an
> infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind
> illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I
> think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a
> criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the
> modus operandi is unclear.
>
> Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this
> ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player
> -- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who
> might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty.
>
> From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If
> so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers.
>
+=+ Bridge is a mansion with many rooms. My advice would be
that any player with doubts such as Karel recites should discuss
the approach to the question with a senior TD in the locality where
the problem arises. Depending on the place the response may well
be different.
                                             ~ Grattan ~  +=+