[mrdct]

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

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?

Yes. Quite clearly it is evidence of you having said it; just as your denial is evidence that you did not say it. Neither of these pieces of evidence is proof of what actually happened; it is merely evidence for the director to weigh-up amongst all other evidence at his disposal to determine the facts on the balance of probabilities. Giving weight to different types of evidence is tricky and largely subjective; particularly in "he said she said" situations. We all know from playing Chinese Whispers that what people hear does not always coincide with what people said. When you throw in language and cultural differences, the gaps between what was said and what was heard tend to widen.

Whilst not explicitly stated in the Laws (perhaps it should be) I generally apply the principle that it is the responsibility of the person conveying the message to make sure they have been understood properly.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-14, 17:03, said:

An assertion or any other thing people say is evidence.

My experience is that very often it is evidence of ignorance, nothing else.

From my "Oxford":
Evidence n. anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believeing something; statements made in a lawcourt to support a case.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-July-14, 17:37, said:

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.

It seems to me that you are reading the regulation as if it were written:
A player may, preferably by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call;

But the regulation says: A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; and this implies that the question you may ask must in case be a written question and nothing else.

It is a written question that may be asked, not a question that may be in writing.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-July-15, 01:01, said:

From my "Oxford":
Evidence n. anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believeing something; statements made in a lawcourt to support a case.

Well that just defeats your own argument.

An assertion can quite easily be something which "gives reason for believing something". If I were to assert that I am wearing black underwear today, would that give you reason to believe it to be true? Maybe or maybe not, so you might gather some further evidence such as character tesimony to see if I'm an habitual liar or get an affidavit from my wife who saw what I put on this morning. But it's all evidence that you need to weigh-up to establish the facts to whatever level of surity you require. If it's to send me to the electric chair we'd want "beyond reasonable doubt" but if it's to award an adjusted score at the bridge table "on the balance of probabilities" will do fine.

The alternative definition of "statements made ... to support" looks even more like verbal testimony in the form of assertion which, again, are not proof of anything but are nonetheless evidence by any reasonable definition (including Oxford's).

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-July-15, 01:20, said:

But the regulation says: A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; and this implies that the question you may ask must in case be a written question and nothing else.

It implies no such thing. The words "must", "should" and "shall" are extremely important words in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge which are selectively and delicately used to distinguish between the really important stuff that is subject to sanction, adjustments and penalties and mere descriptions of correct procedure which if not followed to the letter don't really make much difference but we'd prefer that people follow correct procedure as best they can.

[blackshoe]

From the laws: "Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong)…"

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-July-15, 01:26, said:

Well that just defeats your own argument.

An assertion can quite easily be something which "gives reason for believing something". If I were to assert that I am wearing black underwear today, would that give you reason to believe it to be true? Maybe or maybe not, so you might gather some further evidence such as character tesimony to see if I'm an habitual liar or get an affidavit from my wife who saw what I put on this morning. But it's all evidence that you need to weigh-up to establish the facts to whatever level of surity you require. If it's to send me to the electric chair we'd want "beyond reasonable doubt" but if it's to award an adjusted score at the bridge table "on the balance of probabilities" will do fine.

The alternative definition of "statements made ... to support" looks even more like verbal testimony in the form of assertion which, again, are not proof of anything but are nonetheless evidence by any reasonable definition (including Oxford's).

I have all the time stressed the point that it deals with uncorroborated assertions (statements), and in the question of misinformation with screens that the case is when we have two conflicting uncorroborated assertions (statements) as to what has actually been said.

How any such statement can then be considered evidence is beyond me.

Of course, in a situation where verbal communication is permissible that is what we can request quoted afterwards, and we shall have to establish facts from judging quotations of such asserted communication. But to call such quotations evidence (unless they are corroborated by other facts or independent witness statements) is abuse of the word "evidence"

And when the regulations prescribe written communication (as screen regulations do) then a quotation from an asserted verbal statement cannot be allowed to replace the written note(s) as evidence.

PS.: The other quotation from my Oxford reads: statements made in a lawcourt to support a case

You "cleverly" deleted the reference to lawcourt and thereby avoided the implication that it applies to witness statements. However, this discussion is in no way about witness statements, it is about conflicting and uncorroborated assertions on what a player has said.

[blackshoe]

Evidence is evidence. It might not be convincing, it might not even be pertinent, but it is still evidence. If you think it's only evidence if it is verifiable, or demonstrably true, or some such, then I'm afraid you're wrong.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-15, 09:46, said:

Evidence is evidence. It might not be convincing, it might not even be pertinent, but it is still evidence. If you think it's only evidence if it is verifiable, or demonstrably true, or some such, then I'm afraid you're wrong.

So if I (God forbid) say that you are a cheat then that is evidence of a fact that you indeed are a cheat??????

To me such a statement is simply an assertion and indeed slander. (And I mention this only as an extreme example, I would never say anything like that)

Only if an assertion is corroborated by witness statements or facts shall I be willing to consider it as evidence. Evidence (to me) implies an element of proof. A simple, uncorroborated, self-serving statement shall hardly ever carry any credibility with me, and therefore I shall most often accept it only as the assertion (or allegation) it is, not as evidence in itself.

[blackshoe]

If you make such a statement to a TD who is investigating the facts in regard to a ruling, it's evidence. If you seriously accuse me of being a cheat in a public forum (like this one) it's evidence (and I could use it in a court of law to sue you for libel).

As to what you will do, well, that's up to you. You're still wrong.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-15, 12:21, said:

If you make such a statement to a TD who is investigating the facts in regard to a ruling, it's evidence. If you seriously accuse me of being a cheat in a public forum (like this one) it's evidence (and I could use it in a court of law to sue you for libel).

As to what you will do, well, that's up to you. You're still wrong.

No offence was intended.

Can we agree that we have different understanding on what constitutes evidence? Apparently not everybody distinguish between assertion and evidence the way I do. (And I am not convinced that I am wrong in this respect )

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-15, 14:21, said:

No offence was intended.

Can we agree that we have different understanding on what constitutes evidence? Apparently not everybody distinguish between assertion and evidence the way I do. (And I am not convinced that I am wrong in this respect )

No offense was taken.

Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. I don't know, maybe it's a cultural thing, or a language thing. I still think you're wrong, and I do think that being wrong, you do the game a disservice to ignore evidence on the basis that it is "merely assertion". That leaves you, of course, as it does the rest of us, the question how much weight to give it, but that's a judgment call to be made on a case by case basis. It's not reasonable, IMO, to have a general rule.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-July-15, 14:21, said:

Can we agree that we have different understanding on what constitutes evidence?

No. We can just agree that you are completely wrong.

[bluejak]

The problem, pran, with following your flawed ideas on what constitutes evidence is that if we accept it then we accept a flawed approach to Tournament Direction. When you come to a table you are required to seek evidence as to what happened. If you are going to ignore what you are told because you do not call it evidence that does not matter, though I should not like you to rule at my table. But it is important that other readers of this forum do not think it correct to ignore what people tell them.

[nige1]

Example dispute about evidence in the context of a WBF competition with screens:

• Your vulnerable screen-mate opens 1N.
• You write "range?"
• Rather than provide a written answer, he whispers "15-17".
• (At least, that's what you think you hear).
• On the basis of that information, you defend 3N, sensibly, but it makes.
• You discover that opener has 12 HCP.
• Had you known that opener could have as few points as 12, you would have defended 3N quite differently and would have defeated it by four tricks.
• Your screen-mate admits that their systemic agreement is "12-14".
• You tell your screen-mate that he mistakenly told you "15-17".
• Your screen-mate protests that he correctly said "12-14".
• You call the director.
• Presumably, among the issues that the director addresses are:
• "Is your screen-mate guilty of an irregularity?" (IMO Yes)
• "Is his oral statement a legitimate answer?" (IMO No)
• "Is his memory of what he said admissible as evidence?" (IMO doubtful)
• "If so, what weight should the director give it?" (IMO little if anything)
• Rule-makers can also ask "Are WBF regulations sensible?" (IMO No)

We can guess pran's views; but how would others rule?

[mjj29]

nige1, on 2011-July-15, 20:49, said:

Presumably, among the issues that the director addresses are:

• "Is your screen-mate guilty of an irregularity?" (IMO Yes)
• "Is his oral statement a legitimate answer?" (IMO No)
• "Is his memory of what he said admissible as evidence?" (IMO doubtful)
• "If so, what weight should the director give it?" (OMO little if anything)
• Rule-makers can also ask "Are WBF regulations sensible?" (IMO No)

We can guess pran's views; but how would others rule?

You miss out:

• "Are you guilty of failing to call the director at the time of the irregularity"
  
• "Is your memory of what he said admissible as evidence"
  
• "How do we deal with people who heard 12-14, mis-defended, then use the fact that the answer wasn't written to get a favourable ruling"

The evidence here includes what he says he said, what you say he said, what their actual agreement is, what his hand was, whether he plays 15-17 with any other players or at other positions/vulnerabilities, the likelyhood that your misdefence was actually based on thinking he was stronger, your claim that it was (list not exhaustive). The director must weigh all of those to come to a decision. Perhaps you do start by weighting statements by the explainer less if they were not written, but if (for example) this player only ever plays 12-14 with anyone in any seat and has just opened 1NT holding 12-14 points, I'm going to be skeptical about claims that he didn't, in fact, say "12-14".

In any case, I am going to at least have strong words with both sides about the desirability of writing all answers as well as questions.

[nige1]

mjj29 hasn't addressed all my questions but I'm happy to give my views about mjj29's...

mjj29, on 2011-July-16, 04:03, said:

"Are you guilty of failing to call the director at the time of the irregularity"

IMO, neither side is guilty of this unless they knew a spoken answer is an irregularity so that attention was drawn to it.

mjj29, on 2011-July-16, 04:03, said:

Is your memory of what he said admissible as evidence"

Perhaps. But anyway, If the spoken answer is not admissible then it may be irrelevant.

mjj29, on 2011-July-16, 04:03, said:

"How do we deal with people who heard 12-14, mis-defended, then use the fact that the answer wasn't written to get a favourable ruling"

Secretary-birds are a common species. Sensible attempts at a cull are to change the rules or to enforce them.

[barmar]

Even when written responses are given, the evidence they provide could easily be disputed. In my experience, the same piece of paper is often used for different hands, and even for answers from both screenmates. So a player could point to "12-14" on the paper, and the opponent could claim that it was from a different board than the one in dispute. So unless we get much more formal in the use of these written questions and answers, they're only a small improvement over the he-said-she-said situation with verbal responses.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-July-16, 10:36, said:

Even when written responses are given, the evidence they provide could easily be disputed. In my experience, the same piece of paper is often used for different hands, and even for answers from both screenmates. So a player could point to "12-14" on the paper, and the opponent could claim that it was from a different board than the one in dispute. So unless we get much more formal in the use of these written questions and answers, they're only a small improvement over the he-said-she-said situation with verbal responses.

Most disputes about what was said result from mishearing, misunderstanding or misremembering. A deliberate attempt to conceal a misexplanation is very rare, so using written explanations on recycled paper is still a lot better than verbal explanations.

[mrdct]

nige1, on 2011-July-15, 20:49, said:

Presumably, among the issues that the director addresses are:

• "Is your screen-mate guilty of an irregularity?" (IMO Yes)
• "Is his oral statement a legitimate answer?" (IMO No)
• "Is his memory of what he said admissible as evidence?" (IMO doubtful)
• "If so, what weight should the director give it?" (OMO little if anything)
• Rule-makers can also ask "Are WBF regulations sensible?" (IMO No)

1. It depends. If he said 15-17 when his real agreement was 12-14, it's most certainly an irregularity. That's where the TD needs to step in and discover all of the evidence, weigh it up and determine the facts based on the balance of probabilities.
2. Yes. The oral statement was not following correct procedure, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.
3. Yes. All statements made by the players are evidence that the TD needs to take into account.
4. Quite a lot. In a straight he-said-she-said situation the versions of the events reported by the respective parties will be the primary pieces of evidence to consider. mjj29 mentioned a few others to which I would add have a look at their convention card.
5. They are sensible, but like most things there is room for improvement. I would like it to be explicitly stated that where an explanation is given verablly, doubtful points of fact will generally be resolved in favour of the person receiving the explanation.

Whilst I guess this is a hypothetical example, I would hope that if and when Nige1 finds himself playing in a WBF competition with screens he will ascertain what his opponents' basic system, suit lengths, NT range, carding and twos are before he pulls his cards out of the first board of the match.