[BLML] Unfair?

Jerry Fusselman jfusselman at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 03:04:56 CEST 2012


On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> Maybe not,
> But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who
> will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being
> reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when
> he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy.
> (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.)
>
>> Gordon Rainsford
>>
>> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with
>> someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused),
> but
>> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without
>> making any such accusation.
>>
>> Gordon Rainsford
>>

I am not sure I understand Sven's reply.

Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that
there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his
right as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened,
even though it is merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in
his own mind that he is right.  It seems to me that Sven's style
courts error and invites litigation for libel or slander.  Both risks
are quite pointless.  Gordon has it right.  Use Law 23, and you don't
risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or unpleasant
litigation from bridge players.

Jerry Fusselman


More information about the Blml mailing list