[BLML] Uno

Richard Hills hildalirsch at gmail.com
Sat May 14 17:02:05 CEST 2016


The WBF Revised Disciplinary Code (in effect since 1st January 2016):

http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/official-documents/Policies/WBFDisciplinaryCode.pdf

states in clause 6.12.1 that the standard of proof for Reprehensible
Conduct must be higher than "balance of probabilities", instead
being "clear and convincing evidence".

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Richard Hills <hildalirsch at gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160514/ca7cf11a/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list