[BLML] Unfair?

jfusselman at gmail.com jfusselman at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 21:01:26 CEST 2012

On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:22 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote:

> I think we need to be a lot more certain than we can be, at this remove, 
> before throwing around words like "cheating". My frequent bridge partner 
> who suffers from dementia (and for whom bridge is his life) would not 
> display any uncertainty at the moment that he "snaps out the same card", 
> because for him he's just decided that's the correct card to play. He 
> might well have sat there for some time though, considering the matter 
> before coming to that conclusion.
> The important thing is that we would need to have been there and asked 
> questions before coming to a conclusion, and dementia is not the only 
> explanation. I've seen perfectly lucid people try to lead from the wrong 
> hand for a second time on many occasions; it wouldn't be impossible to 
> do it a third time without skulduggery or mental illness.
> Gordon Rainsford

Of course, I agree with almost everything that Gordon has said in this thread, but I have a question relating to his use of the word *conclusion* above.  Conclusion about what?  Is Gordon thinking of rectification for the OS, the NOS, a procedural penalty, or some sort of disciplinary action?  For which of these rulings would he need to come to a conclusion as to what the declarer was thinking?

In other words, I want to know whether Gordon is also trying to read the declarer's mind.  And, I want to know for which rulings he might make is a decision of the declarer's actual mental state necessary.  Clearly, Gordon is far less likely than Sven or Jeff to state that cheating has taken place.

It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know.

Jerry Fusselman

More information about the Blml mailing list