agot at ulb.ac.be
Wed Oct 28 15:42:42 CET 2015
Le 27.10.2015 03:05, Richard Hills a écrit :
> Yes, I agree with Henk that this discussion is on-topic for blml. Two
> 1. The 1997 "gravest possible offence" Law recommended expulsion as
> the punishment. The 2007 Law 73B2 lacks that recommendation, thus
> granting Regulating Authorities in their object all sublime, to let
> the punishment fit the crime. For example, if a player was intimidated
> by her partner into cheating, then the RA may show her leniency.
> 2. Vitold's idea of a world-wide multi-level sanction enforced by the
> WBF President is contrary to the 2007 Law 80A1. The jurisdiction of a
> WBF Disciplinary Committee extends only to WBF events.
Okay, if that's the other contributors' feeling, I admit it.
And if this is the case, let me make a statement about finding evidence
We have to be extremely careful when collecting evidence on cheating.
Any weakish item would cast a shadow on the whole bunch.
In the case against Fisher-Schwartz, the evidence from board positioning
is overwhelming. But when trying to find other elements, some errors
were made :
- a statement that one of them led clubs because "it was partner's suit"
was brushed aside, because a 1C opening might be short. It should be
known that more than one half of 1C openings in American style are 5+
long (if you want to compute this from pattern probabilities, remember
to take off all 1NT openings and take into account that one opens
unbalanced hands lighter than balanced ones). Surely the argument can't
be said to be of the self-serving variety.
- it was found bizarre that, over a 20-22 NT opening, partner didn't
raise with a 4-HCP quackery. I conducted a poll, and it was 50-50
whether to raise or not. 20-HCP hands are less uncommon than 22-HCP
So here are two weak arguments that the defendants might mention to
complain of relentless accusations and weaken the case against them. It
would be a pity.
More information about the Blml