[Pict]

Mycroft, very few people would make a bridge appeal in order to tell the committee, for example, that 'everyone knows I'm as honest as the day is long'.

The problem is not that their statements inherently lack evidential quality, but that there is no corroboration including no corroboration from standard or local practice. This renders their statement implausible rather than self serving.

So I will disregard your advice and not personally use the term self serving where I think it inappropriate and unhelpful.

[campboy]

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

(That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.)

[Pict]

campboy, on Feb 9 2010, 06:28 AM, said:

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

(That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.)

It would be very surprising in the context of an appeal if the statements prepared were not designed to support the interest of the person appealing.

I think your point would have significance while a TD was asking questions to make a ruling.

[bluejak]

campboy, on Feb 9 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

First of all, a self-serving statement does not lack evidence, because it is evidence. Whether it is sufficient evidence of itself or not is something to be judged. It is an unfortunate fact that self-serving statements by offending sides are not usually accepted without corroboration, while self-serving statements without corroboration are often accepted from non-offenders.

Secondly, using the term "self-serving" to mean something quite different seems pointless and I hope people will not do so here.

campboy, on Feb 9 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.

It is not as simple as that. One of the worries with 'honest' people is that they look at things through rose-tinted spectacles when they benefit themselves, which is where the 'self-serving' idea comes from, and why sensible people neither discount completely nor accept fully self-serving statements.

Pict, on Feb 9 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

It would be very surprising in the context of an appeal if the statements prepared were not designed to support the interest of the person appealing.

That is a very sad comment, which I [fortunately] know to be wrong. For example, if I am one side in an appeal, I look after my own ethics, and because I am jealous of my own ethics, I am perfectly prepared to make a statement that benefits the opposition if I know it to be true.

It is strange that lamford should be involved in this misuse of the term, because I know him to be a similar type of person, and I am thus far more likely to accept a self-serving statement from him with little corroboration than from many other people.

[Pict]

If I prepared my statement (singular) for an appeal and I believed it did not support my case, I would save everyone's time and withdraw the appeal.

Doubtless there may be sentences in my statement that contain facts that lend support to the other side. I would not feel the need to congratulate myself on that. Can't quite see anything 'sad' in any of this.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Feb 9 2010, 08:09 AM, said:

It is strange that lamford should be involved in this misuse of the term, because I know him to be a similar type of person, and I am thus far more likely to accept a self-serving statement from him with little corroboration than from many other people.

I am pleased that you should think so, and I would indeed give information which was beneficial to the other side. My view of the meaning of "self-serving" is very similar to yours. However, I would want a self-serving statement of mine not to be accepted without some other evidence. For example, if I claimed a particular auction was game-forcing, to explain why I bid game after an apparent sign-off, I would indeed expect to be ruled against if there was no corroboration.

You say that it is "an unfortunate fact that self-serving statements by offending sides are not usually accepted without corroboration". I would say that the need to have other evidence is greater but not absolute. Else we accept the cock-and-bull story of East-West to explain why they blatantly used UI in this example.

[bluejak]

Pict, on Feb 9 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

If I prepared my statement (singular) for an appeal and I believed it did not support my case, I would save everyone's time and withdraw the appeal.

Doubtless there may be sentences in my statement that contain facts that lend support to the other side.  I would not feel the need to congratulate myself on that.  Can't quite see anything 'sad' in any of this.

Supposing there are four facts you feel relevant, three of which support your case, one of which does not. Now, I know some people will mention the three and try to avoid mentioning the fourth. But others will not. There is no need to withdraw the appeal, however. The AC is meant to judge, not you.

What is sad is the presumption that everyone would suppress the fourth fact.

lamford, on Feb 9 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

You say that it is "an unfortunate fact that self-serving statements by offending sides are not usually accepted without corroboration". I would say that the need to have other evidence is greater but not absolute. Else we accept the cock-and-bull story of East-West to explain why they blatantly used UI in this example.

That was half of what I said, and it is the comparison between self-serving statements by the two sides I find a pity. Chopping my comment in half gives the wrong impression completely.

[Pict]

bluejak, on Feb 9 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

Supposing there are four facts you feel relevant, three of which support your case, one of which does not. Now, I know some people will mention the three and try to avoid mentioning the fourth. But others will not. There is no need to withdraw the appeal, however. The AC is meant to judge, not you.

What is sad is the presumption that everyone would suppress the fourth fact.

This is a comment on something that does not resemble anything in any of my posts.

The AC have their role, but the first step is that I believe I have a case (and of course I could say honestly believe I have a case, just as a precaution here).

What leads to the conclusion that I would suppress facts is a complete mystery to me.

[mycroft]

Pict, on Feb 9 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

Mycroft, very few people would make a bridge appeal in order to tell the committee, for example, that 'everyone knows I'm as honest as the day is long'.

Really? Have you read the ACBL NABC Casebooks recently? :-) (seriously, there are those who appeal because there's a 10% chance that this committee is going to agree with my crazy theory, and $50, or an AWMW, is worth it the other 90%. Trying to come up with a sufficient disincentive to make frivolous appeals that doesn't disincentivize others totally out of appealing when it's right is a very difficult problem).

In general, however, no. But if the problem is (for instance) that Mycroft hesitated and his partner bid on, and while the hesitation in question was ~10 seconds after 1NT (2H) 3NT, nobody ever actually takes the 10 seconds in this auction, then:

- if Mycroft says that he always pauses after skip bids no matter what auction, announced or not, that is a self-serving comment.
- if that's *all* the evidence he provides, it's *also* a statement make without external evidence.
- given the (also self-serving) comment made by the other side that "nobody pauses in this auction", with no other evidence provided, the AC will have to determine to their own satisfaction which self-serving comment is more likely to be correct. Given that in the ACBL, in fact, "nobody" *does* pause in these auctions, it is likely that Mycroft's statement is going to be given little weight.
- If, in addition to the statement, Mycroft brings in his other partner, who confirms what he says, and in fact adds that Mycroft has tried for years to regularize the partner's pauses after skip bids. Now, more weight will be given.
- And if, in addition to the above, Mycroft brings in one of his regular opponents, who says "yes, he always pauses after skip bids, *and it's really annoying after 1NT-3NT*" - well, maybe now the "preponderance of the evidence" is that, in fact, there was no hesitation, because Mycroft is anal-retentive enough to follow the rules even when they're "stupid".
- But none of the above changes the fact that the comment is self-serving.

Frequently, you see in appeal committee reviews "Yes, the <whatever> is self-serving, but I've played against these two, and it really *is* true" or "the comment is self-serving, but <here's the evidence>". As I said, both meanings are useful, and we should keep the distinction.

Quote

The problem is not that their statements inherently lack evidential quality, but that there is no corroboration including no corroboration from standard or local practice.  This renders their statement implausible rather than self serving.

Exactly. So don't use "self-serving" when you mean "implausible". The problem is that some people *do*, and those people read "self-serving" as "implausible" when others write it; and those others read "implausible" as "self-serving" when the "some people" write.

Quote

So I will disregard your advice and not personally use the term self serving where I think it inappropriate and unhelpful.

I'm confused at this - my advice was to avoid using self-serving where it is inappropriate. Disregarding my advice, in my thoughts, would be to use self-serving where you mean "clearly in personal favour and without evidence" as well as, or instead of, where you mean "self-serving".

[Pict]

mycroft, on Feb 9 2010, 12:41 PM, said:

I'm confused at this - my advice was to avoid using self-serving where it is inappropriate. Disregarding my advice, in my thoughts, would be to use self-serving where you mean "clearly in personal favour and without evidence" as well as, or instead of, where you mean "self-serving".

Apologies if I misunderstood your argument. I was perhaps distracted by the fact that the case in this thread clearly is about an implausible assertion by West, rather than a self serving statement by West (IMO - have to be careful to add these things).

It looks as if we agree - though we might no doubt differ on how often an appeal statement should be described as self serving rather than implausible.

[mycroft]

Yeah, it does sound like we're violently agreeing here. Sorry if I confused.