[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-July-11, 10:36, said:

There is an absolute rule that nothing should be transmitted across the screen.

The screen is supposed to prevent this. But if it fails, it seems wrong to ignore it and not correct the misexplanation.

But maybe the rationale is that we'd like to get the result as if the screen had done its job. This includes the results of misexplanations that are not corrected.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-11, 17:05, said:

Neither the laws of duplicate bridge nor the relevant regulations in this case define what is evidence.
[...]

Regulations explicitly require written communication.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-11, 17:05, said:

[...]
IANAL, but if you follow these definitions, South's testimony is acceptable evidence, and West's testimony is hearsay, and not acceptable. Now we seem to have a preponderance of evidence that South said what he claims he said.

Have you never experienced self-serving statements?

I must repeat: (When there are conflicting verbal statements from the two sides) I prefer to rule according to the relevant regulation and not invent my own definition on what is evidence.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2011-July-11, 23:11, said:

The screen is supposed to prevent this. But if it fails, it seems wrong to ignore it and not correct the misexplanation.

But maybe the rationale is that we'd like to get the result as if the screen had done its job. This includes the results of misexplanations that are not corrected.

....and if that is the rationale, the player is presumably supposed to forget the explanation they heard on the other side of the screen, and so there is no "misexplanation" to correct, either at the end of the auction or at the end of the play.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-July-12, 01:07, said:

....and if that is the rationale, the player is presumably supposed to forget the explanation they heard on the other side of the screen, and so there is no "misexplanation" to correct, either at the end of the auction or at the end of the play.

It seems odd to assume that the people who wrote the regulations intended such a perverse outcome.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-11, 14:56, said:

So when South says he had told West that the agreement on a particular call is X, but West objects and says that South said the agreement was Y.

Neither West nor South is willing to yield and there is no paper on which South had written down what he actually said (or rather should have shown) to West.

Are you really maintaining that South's unsupported statement is evidence on what he did say?

Of course it is. Evidence is information transmitted to you about a situation.

Why do you think people who are accused of crimes speak in their own defence? Are you suggesting what they say is not evidence? That is crazy.

pran, on 2011-July-11, 14:56, said:

Isn't it you who just dismiss the evidence that the regulation has been violated rather than I who dismiss the unsupported statement by South as evidence?

In this situation I prefer to rule according to the relevant regulation and not invent my own definition on what is evidence.

No, you have invented a new definition of evidence that differs from the general one, no doubt used by courts in Norway, for example.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-11, 17:05, said:

Neither the laws of duplicate bridge nor the relevant regulations in this case define what is evidence. My dictionary says Also from my dictionary is
(The emphasis in these quotes is mine.)

IANAL, but if you follow these definitions, South's testimony is acceptable evidence, and West's testimony is hearsay, and not acceptable. Now we seem to have a preponderance of evidence that South said what he claims he said.

Not acceptable does not follow from your quotes, which included the word ‘usually’ [nowadays I am totally unable to manage to quote things inside quotes - sorry]. Considerably less acceptable, maybe.

TDs [ok, most TDs] listen and look at all the evidence, and give it weight dependent on certain things, such as whether it was written in advance, whether it is self-serving or not, and so forth, then they judge. A minority of TDs ignore some of the evidence in their judgement without consideration of it: they are not good TDs.

pran, on 2011-July-12, 00:51, said:

Regulations explicitly require written communication.

Have you never experienced self-serving statements?

Of course. Much evidence from both sides is self-serving and given appropriate weight.

pran, on 2011-July-12, 00:51, said:

I must repeat: (When there are conflicting verbal statements from the two sides) I prefer to rule according to the relevant regulation and not invent my own definition on what is evidence.

So why do you?

gnasher, on 2011-July-12, 04:24, said:

It seems odd to assume that the people who wrote the regulations intended such a perverse outcome.

I don't see any reason to suppose they did. Why should they?

My presumption is they did not think of the actual situation postulated here. When we work things out in these and other forums they are often in strange situations that may not have been envisaged by Law-makers or Regulation writers.

But that does not mean we should not follow the Laws and Regulations. It is easy to overlook certain things, and we have another forum for suggested changes. But the situation here I think is treated by Regulations in most of the world based on the idea that things should not be transmitted across the screeen during the hand. I am not convinced by arguments that this is wrong anyway because I have seen many times, as a Regulation writer myself, how patches to improve one part of a Regulation impinge badly on the whole.

As far as I am concerned it is not by any means the end of the world after an infraction that a Regulation or Law requires it to be dealt with at the end of the hand. I believe this is the case here.

[gnasher]

David, I think you missed my point: Jeffrey was arguing that the regulations mean you shouldn't correct the explanation even at the end of the hand. That is the perverse outcome to which I referred.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-12, 07:30, said:

Of course it is. Evidence is information transmitted to you about a situation.

Why do you think people who are accused of crimes speak in their own defence? Are you suggesting what they say is not evidence? That is crazy.
[...]

Assertions and evidence are not synonymous terms.

If I say that a person is lying then that is an assertion (or allegation), but it is definitely not evidence (except that it can be evidence of slander).

Whatever people who are accused of crimes speak in their own defence is not evidence of anything unless their assertions are corroborated by witness statements or other facts. A judge or a jury may still consider such assertions; most often that is done as an accept that it casts doubt about the charge and thus weakens the existing evidence in the case.

A TD will often have to make rulings based on his weighting of conflicting assertions made by the parties in a situation. If one assertion (only) is corroborated by facts or third party witness statements he will (and IMHO should) rule according to that assertion which now corresponds with available evidence.

Regulations for the situation we discuss prescribe compulsory procedures to be followed by the players so that evidence in the form of written notes shall be available to document exactly what communications has occurred. Without such notes and without witnesses there can be no evidence on which assertion is correct when the two parties present conflicting statements.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-July-12, 10:08, said:

David, I think you missed my point: Jeffrey was arguing that the regulations mean you shouldn't correct the explanation even at the end of the hand. That is the perverse outcome to which I referred.

So he is. But that is just wrong, surely. Unless he can show me a regulation that says that specifically I do not believe it.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-July-12, 07:30, said:

Not acceptable does not follow from your quotes, which included the word ‘usually’ [nowadays I am totally unable to manage to quote things inside quotes - sorry]. Considerably less acceptable, maybe.

Okay. That's still arguing in favor of the preponderance of the evidence supporting the statement of the player who gave the explanation. Or says he did, I forget the details.

The definition I posted used "inadmissible" rather than "unacceptable". I felt that was an inconsequential difference. I hope no one disagrees with that.

I think the theory behind not being able to directly quote "quotes within quotes" is that in a properly constructed thread, you shouldn't need to do so. And it does eliminate the ugly phenomenon of the 100th post including the complete text of all the previous 99, including 99 iterations of the first post, and so on.

[nige1]

IMO ...

• In general, results from illegal sources although seemingly relevant evidence, are legally inadmissible. (e g from polygraphs, wire-taps, and so on, in some courts).
• The conditions of contest for WBF screen events stipulate that the medium for questions and answers must be writing.
• Other media must be illegal, for such communications.
• Hence, in WBF jurisdiction, although seemingly relevant evidence, oral questions and answers are inadmissible.
• Also, in common sense, allowing such evidence would make a mockery of the taboo against it.

[blackshoe]

If the WBF wishes to specify in their regulations that only written evidence of explanations is admissible, they are welcome to do so. Until they do, I disagree with you, Nigel. I don't read the regulation that way.

[mrdct]

The rules of evidence for bridge purposes are basically embodied in Law 85:

Quote

LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS

When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

A. Director’s Assessment

1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.

B. Facts Not Determined

If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

The director needs weigh-up all forms of evidence, be that written or verbal, and which may include assertions, representations, prior history, hearsay, polygraph tests, and wire-taps. No individual piece of evidence is likely to be persuasive of itself, but in total the director just needs to balance it all up and determine the facts. If South says "West said it showed 12-14" and West says "No I didn't, I said 15-17" both of those statements are of evidentiary value but may not be enough to reach a conclusion. But if we start to take other pieces of evidence into account, we may be able to tip the scales sufficiently determine the facts.

WBF GCC#15 is quite specific that it is the duty of the person who has alerted to make sure that his opponent has seen the alert. In situations where there is a dispute about whether or not a bid was alerted, there is a very strong presumption that it was not alerted and the facts would almost always be determined under Law 85 that there was no alert with all of the related consequences. Misinterpreted verbal explanations behind screens is an analagous situation where I believe it is strongly implied that the accuracy and clarity of explanations is a responsibility of the person giving the explanation. If that person chooses to verbalise their explanation they are taking a serious risk that they will be misinterpreted and in applying Law 85 I would generally give more weight to what the receiver inferred than what the provider claims to have said.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-July-12, 18:46, said:

IMO ...

• In general, results from illegal sources although seemingly relevant evidence, are legally inadmissible. (e g from polygraphs, wire-taps, and so on in some courts).
• The conditions of contest for WBF screen events stipulate that the medium for questions and answers must be writing.
• Other media must be illegal, for such communications.

Agreed.

nige1, on 2011-July-12, 18:46, said:

Hence, in WBF jurisdiction, although seemingly relevant evidence, oral questions and answers are inadmissible.

Doesn’t follow at all. We use the evidence we have: we apply greater weight to some than others.

nige1, on 2011-July-12, 18:46, said:

Also, in common sense, allowing such evidence would make a mockery of the taboo against it.

Nonsense. Not using available evidence is silly.

[nige1]

TFLB, L85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS said:

When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

mrdct, on 2011-July-13, 00:13, said:

The rules of evidence for bridge purposes are basically embodied in Law 85 [above]:
The director needs weigh-up all forms of evidence, be that written or verbal, and which may include assertions, representations, prior history, hearsay, polygraph tests, and wire-taps. No individual piece of evidence is likely to be persuasive of itself, but in total the director just needs to balance it all up and determine the facts.
If South says "West said it showed 12-14" and West says "No I didn't, I said 15-17" both of those statements are of evidentiary value but may not be enough to reach a conclusion.

Whatever West said, IMO, under WBF regulations, his oral communication was not an answer. Bluejak and Mrdct may have a different opinion on that. Nevertheless, I hope we can all agree that, prima facie, this evidence is enough for a PP against West.

[mrdct]

I don't agree with that at all. I have never seen a procedural penalty issued for a player verbalising an explanation behind screens and to do so would be quite silly. Players who choose to verbalise their explanations do so at their own risk and will usually have the facts determined in favour of their non-offending screenmate in the event that a dispute arises which to my mind is a fair enough price to pay. This discussion possibly belongs in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" section as there would be merit in Screen Regulations providing clear guidance to directors as to how to handle situations where there is a dispute about what explanation was given.

The current WBF screen regulations don't actually use the word "must" in describing the manner in which explanation are given:

Quote

A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer ... At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

From the preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

Quote

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

I would hone in on the phrase "the reply is also in writing" where the word "is" to my mind imparts a similar concept to the word "does" which describes the correct procedure, but does not suggest that a violation be penalised.

I've played a lot of bridge with screens and also vugraphed quite a lot of bridge with screens and in my experience:

- 98% of the time questions about bids are made by pointing at the bid you want an explanation of and/or looking inquisitively at your screenmate;
- 90% of explanations are either whispered, conveyed by hand signal or indicated by pulling a different bidding card out of the box (i.e. for a transfer);
- written explanations tend to only be given if they are a bit complex or if the questioner has explicitly requested a written response by handing a pen to his screenmate or pointing at the notepad on the table;
- I have never seen anyone use the WBF alert procedure of placing the alert card on the bid and waiting for their screenmate to return it. Most commonly people overtly point at the alertable bid with or without an alert card in hand.
- On 100% of occasions where I've seen disputes about what verbal explanation was given, these have always been ruled on the basis of what the receiver of the explanation thought he heard.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-July-13, 19:31, said:

I don't agree with that at all. I have never seen a procedural penalty issued for a player verbalising an explanation behind screens and to do so would be quite silly. Players who choose to verbalise their explanations do so at their own risk and will usually have the facts determined in favour of their non-offending screenmate in the event that a dispute arises which to my mind is a fair enough price to pay. This discussion possibly belongs in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" section as there would be merit in Screen Regulations providing clear guidance to directors as to how to handle situations where there is a dispute about what explanation was given.

The current WBF screen regulations don't actually use the word "must" in describing the manner in which explanation are given:

Quote

A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer. At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

You misread the regulation:

It is the question that may be asked, not the manner in which it is asked. "by written question" and "in writing" are absolute conditions, not options.

Except for that I completely agree with your comment

[bluejak]

I do not understand this. Quite simply, we run a game as it happens and try to sort out problems. If you want to play let's pretend it is not a game and apply the Laws pedantically and with no thought of commonsense, the bridge-laws mailing list is at your service.

Pretending that someone has not said something he has said is childish, pointless, and akin to sulking because a player makes the final pass in some way other than the official. Let us get away from that sort of thing.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-14, 14:25, said:

I do not understand this. Quite simply, we run a game as it happens and try to sort out problems. If you want to play let's pretend it is not a game and apply the Laws pedantically and with no thought of commonsense, the bridge-laws mailing list is at your service.

Pretending that someone has not said something he has said is childish, pointless, and akin to sulking because a player makes the final pass in some way other than the official. Let us get away from that sort of thing.

Let me try to understand your position:

If a player makes a statement that you have said something you perfectly well know you never said: Do you consider that statement evidence of you having said it?

Of course we both know that you will not expect a Director to give such an uncorroborated statement any weight, that is not my point.

My point is that everything you have stated in this thread makes me understand you as considering a statement like that to be evidence and not just an assertion.

If that is not what you have intended then please say so and let us have this futile discussion ended. Otherwise I must say that I just cannot understand your position.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-14, 15:16, said:

Let me try to understand your position:

If a player makes a statement that you have said something you perfectly well know you never said: Do you consider that statement evidence of you having said it?

Of course we both know that you will not expect a Director to give such an uncorroborated statement any weight, that is not my point.

My point is that everything you have stated in this thread makes me understand you as considering a statement like that to be evidence and not just an assertion.

If that is not what you have intended then please say so and let us have this futile discussion ended. Otherwise I must say that I just cannot understand your position.

An assertion or any other thing people say is evidence.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-July-14, 03:30, said:

You misread the regulation:

It is the question that may be asked, not the manner in which it is asked. "by written question" and "in writing" are absolute conditions, not options.

Except for that I completely agree with your comment

They are not "absolute conditions" they are a description of correct procedure. Failure to follow correct procedure does not necesarily attract a penalty and nor would it ordinarily impede the orderly conduct of the game.

If you go through the parts of the Laws that describe even the most basic procedures such as sitting down, dealing, bidding, arranging dummy, playing a card, turning over a trick, etc. some things include "must", "should" or "shall" and some things don't. The things that don't carry the gravity of a "must", "should" or "shall" are to be taken more as general guidance such that minor deviations that aren't really of any consequence would not attract any penalty.

I would equate verbalising an explanation behind screens to leading face-up or not having dummy arranged properly; although verbalising so loudly that you can be heard on the other side of the screen (which is where this thread started) is perhaps crossing the line somewhat. Good quality screens can mitigate the problem, but heavier and thicker screens cost more to make and transport so some balance needs to be struck.