[mycroft]

I would argue that your rephrase and mine are, if not equivalent, what actually will happen.

We will in fact investigate, we will in fact ask questions, and we will in fact rule. And, given that the regulation is "you don't get to use judgement to play what would be an illegal agreement if it weren't for judgement. Does not apply to a psychic", that the base assumption will be "judgement and not psychic", especially for "you can open 1NT with a singleton if it's the A, K, or Q; you opened it with a stiff J." To be a psychic, your agreement would *at least* have to be "we never open with a singleton, and have system notes/opponents/hands in our record to prove it". To be a misbid, different criteria. Otherwise, it's neither gross nor inadvertent, and therefore, you've violated the regs.

Of course, if I can point to a BW thread that says "it's ludicrous that I can't open [flat 16 with stiff ♠7] 1NT - it's the obvious bid, and how dare they regulate my judgement" when the person who wrote that actually does open [flat 16 with stiff ♥T] 1NT, then I think it will be very very difficult to convince me (or an appeals committee, for that matter) that this was a psych. Note: in case this wasn't obvious, the person who started that thread is not blackshoe, nor am I implying that he would say that.

I agree with you that the words "reverse onus" aren't anywhere in the regulations. Of course, *no* status of proof is stated in the regulations[1]. Which means that it's up to the directors to make a decision, and the directors have spent the last 50 years being told "it's Just Bridge, Everyone would do it, if you could play, you'd know that too, but you're directing because you can't." (okay, when they're trying to get a ruling in their favour, the last one isn't said. When they're complaining about the ruling they got, that's when it goes from implied to stated.) In an environment like that, you'd better believe we're going to start with "this is what it looks like. Convince me otherwise."

Same as the "state of play" that says "if the bidding card you pulled is in the other pocket of the box from the one you claim to have gone for, the assumption is that it actually was a change of mind." Hey, you can win that - I've done so (XX meant to be Stop card, didn't hurt that XX would have been illegal) - but you have to overcome a huge amount of evidence that players try to get away with ohnoseconds by claiming they were finger issues.

[1]Yes, there's a "preponderance of the evidence" in there somewhere, whether it's a Law or the General COC. Note that there's a huge amount of evidence that people that "extend" the regulations want to play fast and loose with the rules. *You* might not, but Damon Runyon's rule applies, so prove it.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-29, 18:17, said:

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

Zelandakh, on 2021-January-29, 19:20, said:

Are you suggesting that RA guidance such as the EBU's "to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" is contrary to the laws of bridge?

Considering that what you've quoted is, verbatim, Law 21B1{b}, it would be rather foolish of me to make that suggestion so no, I'm not suggesting that.