[mrdct]

In my experience, whenever there has been a misinterpretation of a verbal explanation the TD will almost always determine the facts in favour of the person who misheard the mumblings. In other words, if you choose to not write down your explanations you are in breach of the regulations and the receiver of the explanation will be treated as the non-offending side in resolving "he said - she said" facts.

[paulg]

mrdct, on 2011-July-11, 01:00, said:

In my experience, whenever there has been a misinterpretation of a verbal explanation the TD will almost always determine the facts in favour of the person who misheard the mumblings. In other words, if you choose to not write down your explanations you are in breach of the regulations and the receiver of the explanation will be treated as the non-offending side in resolving "he said - she said" facts.

My experience is consistent with pran's world. If it is not written down, then the receiver of the information has no recourse.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-July-10, 21:11, said:

pran said:

Consequently, if there is disagreement between the two players on what information has actually been given then the best evidence is the written notes showing such information. This is one of the main reasons why screen regulations require that all such information shall be given in writing.

I always thought the main reason was to prevent UI due to your partner hearing your explanation. That's why hand signals are just as good for simple explanations.

Use as evidence is a side benefit.

Avoiding UI across the screen is another main reason. The screen regulations I know of explicitly specify that all questions and explanations shall be made in writing (with the screen gate closed). Hand signals are not acceptable.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 17:31, said:

Far as I'm aware, the ruling would be for or against a pair, not a particular player.
[...]

Of course, but when there is a dispute about information when screens are used the dispute is most necessarily between the two players sharing the same side of the screen. So the ruling must resolve the dispute between these two players.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-10, 17:11, said:

Who would object?

The director, apparently. This is supported by the rules - see Cascade's quote, which is part of the rules in the WBF, EBL and EBU. The rules in the USBF are different:

USBF sreen regulations said:

Prior to the Opening Lead:
a. The opening leader is permitted to ask for clarification in writing from his or her opponent on the other side of the screen.
b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

I still don't understand the rationale for the WBF/EBL/EBU approach.

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-July-11, 02:51, said:

The director, apparently. This is supported by the rules - see Cascade's quote, which is part of the rules in the WBF, EBL and EBU. The rules in the USBF are different:


I still don't understand the rationale for the WBF/EBL/EBU approach.

I don't understand the rationale for the USBF approach. The screen is meant to be this magical barrier through which there is no communication other than legal bids and calls for cards from dummy. If there have been differing alerts and explanations, the non-offending side are always well protected and will usually be assumed to have found the winning play had they been correctly informed. The USBF approach seems to be a bit of a time-waster and also opens-up a can of worms from a UI perspective.

[gnasher]

mrdct, on 2011-July-11, 03:11, said:

I don't understand the rationale for the USBF approach. The screen is meant to be this magical barrier through which there is no communication other than legal bids and calls for cards from dummy. If there have been differing alerts and explanations, the non-offending side are always well protected and will usually be assumed to have found the winning play had they been correctly informed. The USBF approach seems to be a bit of a time-waster and also opens-up a can of worms from a UI perspective.

The rationale for the USBF approach is that it leads to fewer assigned scores, and more scores obtained at the table. That outcome would be preferred by (almost) every player, spectator, official and organising body.

You seem to be saying that preventing communication of any sort is beneficial. I don't see why. As far as I am concerened, screens have only one purpose: the prevention of UI. I don't see any benefit to preventing communication between South and East - the only reason that screen regulations do so is for practical reasons.

Also, how does the USBF approach create UI problems?

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-11, 03:11, said:

If there have been differing alerts and explanations, the non-offending side are always well protected and will usually be assumed to have found the winning play had they been correctly informed.

The NOS are protected if they know that there have been differing alerts and explanations, but normally they will not find this out, and when they do it will often not be during the correction period, especially if the latter is something like half an hour before the end of the session.

But whatever the regulations are, as a practical matter an ethical player will always correct an incorrect explanation if he has actually heard one; so this particular case is not very interesting.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-11, 06:48, said:

But whatever the regulations are, as a practical matter an ethical player will always correct an incorrect explanation if he has actually heard one; so this particular case is not very interesting.

On the contrary, I think it is quite interesting that the screen regulations in other than USBF seemingly do not provide for the ethical player to do the ethical thing, and that some posters think (because of this) Declarer should not.

[gnasher]

The WBF/EBL/EBU screen regulations apparently prohibit a correction during the hand. It's hard to criticise a player for obeying the regulations.

However, I think you're still required to correct the explanation at the end of the hand. Law 20F5 states, in part, that "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation ... must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is ... for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." It seems to me that the screen regulations merely change when that "first legal opportunity" occurs - they don't remove the obligation to correct the misexplanation.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-July-08, 15:13, said:

The screen regulations provide that all questions and explanations be communicated between screenmates and in writing.

Despite this, many (most?) players seem to give at least some of their explanations verbally.

I can recall a few occasions where the auction has ended, my side is about to declare the contract and I hear an incorrect explanation being given by my partner. Yes, I know the two players on the other side of the screen are at fault for asking and answering questions verbally, but what are my obligations?

Should I:

1. offer a correct of the explanation before the play start (as Law 20F5b seems to require) so that my opponent on the other side is not damaged during the play; or

2. not say anything on the basis that the screen regulations require my partner to give all explanations to her screenmate; or

3. not say anything at the time but offer a correction of the explanation at the end of the hand?

In my view you should talk to the TD away from the table and tell him.

But I believe he will [and should] advise #3.

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 12:57, said:

When I had this problem in the EBU Premier League, the director (Mike Amos) wouldn't let me correct it until the end of the hand. That's consistent with Gordon's response, but to me it doesn't seem a very sensible approach.

We know that misinformation has occurred. If we correct the misinformation now, it may not be too late to prevent damage, and therefore obtain a result at the table. Everyone prefers to obtain a result at the table to having one assigned by the director.

What are the arguments in favour of not allowing a correction?

There is an absolute rule that nothing should be transmitted across the screen. Despite the infraction it is still correct to follow that principle as far as possible.

pran, on 2011-July-10, 07:34, said:

If there is full agreement between the two players involved, yes. Otherwise this "evidence" should be dismissed as not established according to regulations.

Oh, no. Oral evidence is evidence, pran, and you do not dismiss it like that. Of course it is not "established according to regulation" but that does not mean it is not evidence.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-11, 08:39, said:

On the contrary, I think it is quite interesting that the screen regulations in other than USBF seemingly do not provide for the ethical player to do the ethical thing, and that some posters think (because of this) Declarer should not.

gnasher, on 2011-July-11, 09:26, said:

The WBF/EBL/EBU screen regulations apparently prohibit a correction during the hand. It's hard to criticise a player for obeying the regulations.

However, I think you're still required to correct the explanation at the end of the hand. It seems to me that the screen regulations merely change when that "first legal opportunity" occurs - they don't remove the obligation to correct the misexplanation.

I agree with this.

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

What are the arguments in favour of not allowing a correction?

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

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

Yes, but what are the arguments in favour of this rule's existence?

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-July-11, 09:26, said:

The WBF/EBL/EBU screen regulations apparently prohibit a correction during the hand. It's hard to criticise a player for obeying the regulations.

However, I think you're still required to correct the explanation at the end of the hand. Law 20F5 states, in part, that "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation ... must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is ... for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." It seems to me that the screen regulations merely change when that "first legal opportunity" occurs - they don't remove the obligation to correct the misexplanation.

I don't see this.

There is nothing in the screen regulations to say how Law 20F5 might be modified when screens are in use.

If Law 20F5 applies (and I'm not convinced that there exists a Law to over-ride it) then as declarer or dummy I am obliged to correct before the opening lead. (This appears to conflict with the principle of the screen regulations, hence my question).

If it is decided that Law 20F5 does not apply when screens are in use, then I don't see how that Law can be quoted as an instruction to correct at the end of the hand. (I agree with Paul that it feels morally right to bring a misexplanation which may have caused damage to the opponents' attention as soon as possible, but it also feels morally right to disclose an un-noticed revoke, even though the Law specifically says there is no obligation to do so.)

Indeed if you apply your logic to the general case, shouldn't you be asking at the every hand to see all written explanations given on the other side of the screen on the off chance that partner has misexplained something? Law 20F5 says "must" after all.

[axman]

Cascade, on 2011-July-10, 18:20, said:

This happened to my partner and I at the recent APBF.

We played a session. Scored up. Went and had some dinner. And only then went through some of the hands.

When we got to the relevent board I said "your defense confused me on this board". She said "Why?". "Well you didn't continue trumps after I switched to one". "But he bid diamonds so I thought you were short too and potentially could overruff dummy and you were just making a safe exit with the trump". "He didn't bid diamonds - what was the auction?" " 1C 1S 1NT 2D ..." "Oh yeah 2D was alerted as NMF" "It wasn't on my side of the screen"

Probably it made one trick difference for us but we were outside the correction period. I discussed with our captain and chef de mission the next morning at breakfast and they both concurred it was outside the correction period so we took the matter no further.

It would seem to me that it is a very good idea for the declaring side to recount the agreements to their bidding prior to the OL.

[pran]

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

pran said:

If there is full agreement between the two players involved, yes. Otherwise this "evidence" should be dismissed as not established according to regulations.

Oh, no. Oral evidence is evidence, pran, and you do not dismiss it like that. Of course it is not "established according to regulation" but that does not mean it is not evidence.

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?

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.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-July-11, 12:18, said:

I don't see this.

There is nothing in the screen regulations to say how Law 20F5 might be modified when screens are in use.

If Law 20F5 applies (and I'm not convinced that there exists a Law to over-ride it) then as declarer or dummy I am obliged to correct before the opening lead. (This appears to conflict with the principle of the screen regulations, hence my question).

If it is decided that Law 20F5 does not apply when screens are in use, then I don't see how that Law can be quoted as an instruction to correct at the end of the hand.

I agree with you that it's doubtful that the screen regulations can override Law 20F5.

However, you also seem to be saying that, if such overriding is allowed, Law 20F5 must apply either in its entirety or not at all. Why do you assume that the part that is overridden is specifically the text enclosed between the numerals "5" and "6"? You could equally argue that the whole of Law 20 is overridden, or all of Laws 20-29, or all of the text on page 32 of the English edition.

Instead, it seems sensible to assume that, if the regulations are allowed to override the Laws, they override only the part where the two are inconsistent. That is only the text "after the final pass of the auction".

Quote

Indeed if you apply your logic to the general case, shouldn't you be asking at the every hand to see all written explanations given on the other side of the screen on the off chance that partner has misexplained something? Law 20F5 says "must" after all.

No, I don't think so. If I have no reason to believe an infraction has occurred, I don't think the laws require me to investigate the possibility.

[blackshoe]

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

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

Neither the laws of duplicate bridge nor the relevant regulations in this case define what is evidence. My dictionary says

Quote

in Law, information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.

Also from my dictionary is

Quote

hearsay: in Law, the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

(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.

[nige1]

pran, on 2011-July-09, 16:15, said:

The Director should not accept as questions asked or explanations given other than such that can be documented from the paper on which they have been written.
No written documentation of a question: The question has not been asked.
No written documentation of an explanation: No such explanation has been given.

In the case of a dispute about a "Question" or "Explanation", I agree with Sven.

If the rule (law or regulation) is daft -- as many are -- then the law-maker should consider changing or scrapping it. As long as it remains in the rule-book, however, the director should attempt to enforce it. If players expected a PP for breaking a minor rule, many silly and unnecessary problems that are now common would become rare (For example problems arising from sloppy designations of dummy's card, flouting stop-card regulations, and so on and on).

A game with fewer contentious irregularities and opportunities for "gamesmanship" would be smoother, faster, more friendly, and more fun.

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-July-11, 03:49, said:

Also, how does the USBF approach create UI problems?

If the defender on lead passes a note seeking a recount of the explanations given on the other side of the screen he would presumedly be doing so because he has some doubt regarding the accuracy of the explanation he has been given on his side of the screen. The fact that he has reason to doubt the accuracy of explanations given to him is UI to his partner, unless he makes such enquiries every single time he is on lead. The latter situation would, of course, be a huge time waster when screens already add a little bit of time to the process.

As I said before the NOS are well protected when differing explanations have been given and every ruling and appeal I've ever seen in those circumstances come down heavily of the side that got their explnations wrong - quite reasonably imho.