agot at ulb.ac.be
Thu May 12 10:31:45 CEST 2016
Le 12.05.2016 00:26, Robert Frick a écrit :
> Good points. And since it is at least possible that the use was
> unintentional, that would be a defense against the cheating charge.
> I should have just called it "exceedingly likely use of UI"
AG : agree on the principle with the above, but there remains a hurdle.
Let's just take an example.
If a player has a marked hesitation before making a takeout double, it
is UI that his double is flawed in some way, and its (obvious or likely)
use would lead to score adjustment and perhaps a moderate procedural
penalty, without any other measure being needed.
If a pair decides that, when they make a slow takeout double, it means
it is flawed, this constitutes illicit communication, "the gravest
possible offence", and should lead to extremely severe reaction.
Just tell me : how do you distinguish between those two ?
More information about the Blml