[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-November-20, 10:24, said:

barmar, on 2014-November-20, 10:02, said:

The editorial in the December 2014 Bridge World that arrived a couple of days ago seems somewhat related to this. It's in response to the suggestion that when members of a partnership disagree on what their agreement is (or whether they even have one), the intent of the player who took the action in question should be taken. BW then gives a half dozen reasons why this would be a poor policy.

And how many reasons why it would be a good policy? (or are they biased?)

Probably half a dozen less than the number of reasons they gave why they think this is a poor policy...

Rik

[barmar]

The tone of the article is that the arguments against it are overwhelming.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 11:00, said:

The tone of the article is that the arguments against it are overwhelming.

Well. then I submit one "overwhelming" argument for:

Law 21 B 1 b said:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-November-21, 11:00, said:

The tone of the article is that the arguments against it are overwhelming.

Barmar, in the poll, you voted that a player should have the right to ask the bidder to explain the systemic meaning of his own call, when his partner was unsure of their agreement. Please would you clarify for me:

• Should players have that right, without needing to call the director? (or should they have to call the director first, as now?)
• Should that right apply when he the bidder's partner claims "no agreement"? (Or only when he says he's forgotten?).
• Did the BW editorial affect your opinion? (I'm looking forward to reading it )

[barmar]

nige1, on 2014-November-21, 14:56, said:

Barmar, in the poll, you voted that a player should have the right to ask the bidder to explain the systemic meaning of his own call, when his partner was unsure of their agreement. Please would you clarify for me:

• Should players have that right, without needing to call the director? (or should they have to call the director first, as now?)
• Should that right apply when he the bidder's partner claims "no agreement"? (Or only when he says he's forgotten?).
• Did BW editorial affected your opinion? (I'm looking forward to reading it )

I think I voted several days before the issue arrived, so it couldn't have influenced by vote. I also never said I agreed fully with the editorial, I just reported that it exists.

For those who don't get BW, here's a summary of the arguments they give against automatically taking the word of the bidder (I've mostly just quoted the first sentence of each paragraph in the editorial):

• Allowing a partnership to announce an agreement "after the fact" negligently fails to demand responsibility for correctly informing one's opponents in advance.
  
• It permits self-serving declarations to be accepted as fact.
  
• It supersedes hard evidence (the disagreement) with, at best, one person's possibly-faulty memory.
  
• In some MI cases, it increases the chance that the wrong side will suffer any actual injustice.
  
• Accepting the actor's statement of an agreement that applies to his action can be wrong if if (a) the actor (but not his partner) is wrong; (b) both partners are wrong; or (c ) there was no agreement.
  
• It is relatively ineffective to treat symptoms without attacking the underlying disease.

[blackshoe]

I haven't read the editorial yet, but my first reaction is that I wouldn't automatically take the word of the bidder, nor would I automatically reject his statement. Also, sometimes self-serving statements are fact, though it would be unlikely the TD will be sure of that.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-22, 20:04, said:

[...]
For those who don't get BW, here's a summary of the arguments they give against automatically taking the word of the bidder (I've mostly just quoted the first sentence of each paragraph in the editorial):

• Allowing a partnership to announce an agreement "after the fact" negligently fails to demand responsibility for correctly informing one's opponents in advance.
  
• It permits self-serving declarations to be accepted as fact.
  
• It supersedes hard evidence (the disagreement) with, at best, one person's possibly-faulty memory.
  
• In some MI cases, it increases the chance that the wrong side will suffer any actual injustice.
  
• Accepting the actor's statement of an agreement that applies to his action can be wrong if if (a) the actor (but not his partner) is wrong; (b) both partners are wrong; or (c ) there was no agreement.
  
• It is relatively ineffective to treat symptoms without attacking the underlying disease.

I feel confused.
Does the article question the words of the bidder or the words of the explainer (and which words)?

If the bidder claims that he called according to the partnership understandings (as I would expect him to claim except when he claims psyching), that seems to sustain the rule to assume misinformation rather than misbid absent evidence to the contrary.

Does BW favour taking the words of the explainer against the words of the bidder whenever there is a discrepancy? Incredible!

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-November-23, 02:41, said:

I feel confused.
...
Does BW favour taking the words of the explainer against the words of the bidder whenever there is a discrepancy? Incredible!

The list of arguments is prefaced with: "Taking the word of one particular partner has many drawbacks, including:". So they don't favor automatically taking either player's word.

I'm not sure how they reconcile this opinion with the law that says that the ruling should be misexplanation rather than misbid absent evidence to the contrary. Maybe someone would like to write a letter to the editor asking them about this.