[BLML] L16B2 Interpretation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Geller geller at nifty.com
Thu Dec 17 03:39:03 CET 2009

Unless the hypothetical use of UI seemed to be clearly intentional, in 
which case L73 would apply, there is no need to call the deirector IMO.

"no harm, no foul" (basketball) or "playing advantage" (football/soccer) 
has similar approaches.

L16B1 says the partner "may not choose from among logical alternatives 
one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the 
extraneous information."   The key words here are "that could .. have 
been."  It is not an issue (and probably is in most cases 
unestablishable) whether the player in question actually did use the UI. 
  I believe we owe this wording to Mr. Kaplan's wisdom in moving 
UI-related issue out of the realm of "cheating-like" issues to ones of 
equity adjustment, so they could be dealt with by TDs and committees 
without raising implicit ethical accusations.


Nigel Guthrie さんは書きました:
> [Richard Hills quotes Australia and New Zealand official recommendation]
> The preferred procedure is to summon the Director at the end of the hand 
> but only if it becomes apparent that an opponent may have acted upon 
> extraneous information made available by his partner. The Director need 
> only be called if the non-offenders believe they may have been damaged
> [Nigel]
> Here we go again :( Is this regulation legal? IMO if a player seems to 
> have used unauthorised to choose between logical alternatives, then the 
> director should be called when there is no obvious damage - even if the 
> law-breaker's action turned out disastrously for him.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Robert (Bob) Geller,   Tokyo, Japan     geller at nifty.com

More information about the Blml mailing list