[BLML] Matilda and Herman versus Richard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Thu Apr 24 13:13:28 CEST 2014

Richard James HILLS schreef:
>>Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are
>>playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming
>>misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule
>>In [my] opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do
>>you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to
>>ascribe to you?
> Richard:
> Tell a lie because the Director will not believe the truth?
> No, no and no!

No, that is not what I meant.
What I meant is that Peter was OK with giving the consistent answer when 
the player believed his partner had given the correct information.
But will the Director believe you when you say you are certain?
Not Necessarily!
I do not advocate lying, but even when you are telling the truth, there 
is no reason why the director should believe you.
Which basically means that you're always screwed.

> My ethics depend upon me trying to tell the truth to the best of my ability,
> ++not++ upon what an incompetent American Director will eventually
> guess is the truth after she seeks advice from an American lawyer (instead
> of her seeking Law 85 evidence).

Your ethics depend upon it, but others' ethics?
As director, you do not want to have to rely on players' ethics.
You should be able to treat honest and dishonest people the same way. 
And that can only be done in one of two ways:
- accept that players are allowed to provide the consistent explanation, or
- rule against them whenever they do.
It's not a good thing to rule in their favour when they say that they 
were certain, because they cannot prove that they were, and you cannot 
prove that they weren't.

And I haven't even begun to ask how the ruling should go!


More information about the Blml mailing list