[BLML] Uno

Richard Hills hildalirsch at gmail.com
Thu May 12 15:34:15 CEST 2016


Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: East-West

You, East, hold:

K842
Q6
2
J97532

The bidding has gone:

2D (Alerted and explained as a weak two in hearts, or a weak two in spades,
or 21-22 balanced) - pass - 2H (pass or correct) - pass - 3D (non-systemic)
- pass - ???

What call do you make?
What other call(s) do you consider making?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills <hildalirsch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Willner:
>
> [snip]
>
> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is
> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate
> disciplinary body.
>
> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating."
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Some quibbles:
>
> 1) Grattan Endicott earlier noted that the Drafting Committee
> intentionally excluded the words "cheat" / "cheating" from the Lawbook.
> 2) Rather, in addition to run-of-mill unintentional infractions, there are
> "must not" intentional infringements / infractions (Law 72B1), and "gravest
> possible offence" private systems, for example finger signals (Law 73B2).
> 3) "If the Director is convinced" is NOT the criterion for Law 91B (Right
> to Disqualify). Unlike many other Laws, the Director may not act upon a
> personal conviction / balance of probabilities. Instead the criterion is
> "for cause".
> 4) Due to the gravity of disqualification, Law 91B is the only Law in the
> Lawbook for which the Director lacks autarky power. Any disqualification
> under Law 91B also requires approval from the Tournament Organizer.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-09 10:06 AM, agot wrote:
>> > I think that the point is to prove that a leap to slam isn't
>> > necessarily a proof that one got UI.
>>
>> Of course it isn't.  Nobody has suggested any such thing.  Good grief!
>>
>> A leap to slam with no visible prospects of making nor a worthwhile
>> sacrifice is another matter.  "Got UI" is one possible explanation, but
>> there may be others.  The Director has to judge on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>> On 2016-05-09 1:36 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>> > 3. The embarrassment to the laws is when we cannot find any way to
>>  > rectify for a blatant case of cheating.
>>
>> If the Director is convinced of "blatant cheating," the proper action is
>> to disqualify the offender (L91) and refer the matter to the appropriate
>> disciplinary body.
>>
>> An illegal action taken in ignorance is hardly "blatant cheating."  If a
>> player receives UI from some source other than partner and doesn't
>> notify the Director, that's a violation of L16C.  There's no prescribed
>> rectification, so L12A1 applies.  Such judgments are made on "balance of
>> probabilities," per L85A1, if the facts are unclear.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20160512/72e5f32c/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list