[BLML] Unfair?

Jeff Easterson JffEstrsn at aol.com
Mon Apr 30 02:09:19 CEST 2012

Not impossible as you write (but what is impossible at the bridge 
table?) but very, VERY, unlikely.  But you are right in that we are only 
trying to evaluate the report in the original posting and to come to a 
decision it would be necessary to have been at the table.  But isn't 
this almost always true?  And, in blml, we are never at the table.  JE

Am 29.04.2012 10:22, schrieb Gordon Rainsford:
> 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
> On 29/04/2012 08:54, Jeff Easterson wrote:
>> I don't understand this.  Of course you can use §23.  But to return to
>> the original incident: when a declarer leads from the wrong hand, is
>> reminded that the other hand has the lead, then repeats  the lead from
>> the wrong hand, is reminded again and then leads a third time from the
>> wrong hand: either, as someone else wrote, he is demented or cheating.
>> I see no other explanation and doubt that many demented persons play
>> bridge.  In the original posting there was no mention of confusion,
>> uncertainty, absentmindedness.  As I recall it was reported that "he
>> snapped out the same card".  Ciao,  JE
>> Am 29.04.2012 03:04, schrieb Jerry Fusselman:
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml at rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list