Obvious question

[jdonn]

Is there a definition in the laws (or maybe official WBF interpretation) of what is meant by a player's "peers"? Is it only based on skill level, or can it be based on other factors as well?

 

For example if a player's partner is known to psych a lot in a given situation that is relevent to making a ruling, could I say someone is only his peer if either their partner psychs a lot or they are capable of putting themselves in the position of a player whose partner psychs a lot?

[kenrexford]

For you, it is easy. If they came to the tournament in the short yellow bus, then they can sit in on the committee. :D

[jallerton]

The word "peer" itself does not appear in the Laws, but I suspect you are referring to Law16B1b:

 

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

So when TDs talk about "peers" they are referring to people of the same class using the partnership's methods.

 

Whether "class" is supposed to be interepreted in the narrow sense of "standard" or in a more general sense, e.g. "the class of expert frequent BBO posters whose partners psyche a lot" is not immediately clear.

[barmar]

I've always assumed "class" refers to players of similar expertise. Perhaps the psyching tendency could be included in "the methods of the partnership", but psyching is by definition a deviation from the partnership's methods. I think stylistic tendencies narrow things down too much, as there may not be enough peers to be able to apply the law reasonably.

 

Kind of like when you get a "jury of your peers", it doesn't mean that the jury box should be full of suspected criminals.

[Finch]

I know that frequency of psyching is (by definition) not part of the 'methods' of the partnership, but I do think partnership style does come into it.

 

I did a poll a few months back relating to an appeal to the national authority where a player had psyched. As well as trying to include in my poll only players who were of a similar (or better) standard than the player concerned, I also worked hard to find a number of players whom I knew psyched occasionally, or their partners pscyhed, in similar auctions.

[jdonn]

Kind of like when you get a "jury of your peers", it doesn't mean that the jury box should be full of suspected criminals.

If interpreted as in bridge it would mean a jury of people approximately equally as intelligent as you are, no?