Providing evidence of agreements

[dan_ehh]

In what way does considering a player's verbal statement as evidence make the law completely meaningless? Or useless?

It would make the statement "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" (to the contrary of mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call) meaningless since there would always be evidence to the contrary.

That may be true in one way. But since this Law is always assumed to mean "adequate evidence" or "compelling evidence" then it makes perfect sense and is a usable Law.

 

Perhaps this is the problem. We have a simple, workable Law. There seems an effort in this thread to change it into an unworkable Law and then say we should not rule the way people do. It seems an unnecessary and unhelpful approach.

The law says "evidence". It does not say "adequate evidence" or "compelling edvidence".

If, when ruling based on this law, you treat the text as though it says something different, you are interpreting the law.

You are basically agreeing with me.

 

Unless you are saying that a player's self serving statement can be considered compelling evidence, in which case we are back to square one.

[nige1]

Many players believe that rules should rely as little as possible on director judgement in an attempt to achieve some consistency and the appearance of fairness.

Why do I suspect that these many players are all named Nigel? :D

:) Tee hee :) Why do we suspect that advocates of reliance on director judgement are mostly directors? :)

If law-makers were seriously interested in the views of ordinary players, they could conduct polls rather than just consult top directors and NBO administrators.

[bluejak]

The law says "evidence". It does not say "adequate evidence" or "compelling evidence".

If, when ruling based on this law, you treat the text as though it says something different, you are interpreting the law.

You are basically agreeing with me.

 

Unless you are saying that a player's self serving statement can be considered compelling evidence, in which case we are back to square one.

Nearly correct: someone is interpreting the Law. And I do not see why we need to disturb that interpretation.

 

As to what is compelling evidence, sometimes a single self-serving statement will be compelling evidence, sometimes it will not. It is a matter of judgement.

[blackshoe]

The law says "evidence". It does not say "adequate evidence" or "compelling edvidence".

If, when ruling based on this law, you treat the text as though it says something different, you are interpreting the law.

You are basically agreeing with me.

 

Unless you are saying that a player's self serving statement can be considered compelling evidence, in which case we are back to square one.

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.

 

That Law 75 does not qualify "evidence" is irrelevant. The Law is a body, and all of it applies.

[dan_ehh]

As to what is compelling evidence, sometimes a single self-serving statement will be compelling evidence, sometimes it will not.  It is a matter of judgement.

This is where all parts of the thread interject. (Well, except for the iPod business)

 

Why should an opponent be penalized because you (generic you, not you in particular) lie to the director and he takes your word for it?

Many players believe that rules should rely as little as possible on director judgement in an attempt to achieve some consistency and the appearance of fairness.

I will not quote myself, but I think verbal statements are very problematic, because when one actually believes one's statement to be true, one will sound truthful and the director is more likely to believe it.

And of course we have the problem of those who actually do lie. Sometimes very skillfully.

 

Words are cheap. Anyone can say what they want, and their lies can never be proven to be lies.

 

A directive which says verbal statements are not to be considered as evidence in such cases (misbid vs. misinformation) will be good for various reasons:

1. It will annul the discrimination between those who have rhetorical skills and those who lack them.

2. It will make it very hard for liars and cheaters to "get away with it".

3. It will make the ruling less dependent on "what the director ate for breakfast". As we all know, directors are not always the best players, and the director's judgment may sometimes be flawed. Being able to use judgment is important, but so is consistency. Bridge is not a science and so judgment can go many ways according to which director you get. Having a solid rule in place will eliminate most of these occurrences. I do not think the aforementioned Dutch rule is a very good one, but I am sure it can be improved upon.

 

 

Forcing passes are a particular problem as they are rarely included on even the most complete convention card.

I think the biggest problem with forcing passes is that they are contrary to the basic mechanics of the game.

When someone passes, the pass usually means "I have nothing to add at this time". When someone passes out of tempo, the pass says as above, but the UI given by the BIT says the exact opposite.

If the players wish to employ the forcing pass method, I think it makes sense to require them to have written proof that they actually do play this method. They may not have discussed the specific auction, but they should at least have a general agreement regarding when a pass is forcing.

If not, anyone can pass out of tempo and later claim it was forcing.

Furthermore, I do not think it is a "big deal" to require them to do so. A few lines in the system card should suffice.

 

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.

That Law 75 does not qualify "evidence" is irrelevant. The Law is a body, and all of it applies.

This is why I am discussing the issue here. This forum is about changes to the laws, is it not?

[jdonn]

I have no inherent problem with interpreting a law slightly against either the precise wording or in a way that renders the way it is written illogical (in the sense that a statement wouldn't need to be there.) That is as long as the interpretation is both well known and applied consistently, as I believe this one is.

 

But in such a case let's at least be clear that that's what we are doing, and that the written wording of the law could probably use some tweaking.

 

In this specific case I frankly think Dan makes the most compelling arguments, but I also don't care about the issue much.

[bluejak]

Words are cheap. Anyone can say what they want, and their lies can never be proven to be lies.

I do not really see the relevance of this, but it is definitely not true. People who lie usually get known for it and treated differently. The one thing that does not generally happen is that someone lies once. It is a state of mind whether lying matters.

 

Foe example, in many situations I will not lie. This is to protect my integrity to myself because I do not believe that talk is cheap. I know some people who will lie at any time. I also know some who do not. Naturally, I trust the latter far more than the former.

 

While a single self-serving statement is very very rarely the only evidence available, the whole idea of taking the TD judgement away seems unnecessary, and will provide such a major change to the whole game, and why? As far as I can see because the people suggesting it have no faith in TDs and are looking for some sort of utopia, which as always with such hopes will only cause lots and lots of other problems.

 

In general a TD has various evidence to use. He weighs it, considers, consults and concludes. It is a good, workable method with a high success rate. We have an appeals process to make sure we do not have total reliance on this. I am less convinced that that is necessary, but it does have two who main advantages, one it gives a forum for upset players to express themselves, two it provides a comfort level for the many who do believe in the appeals process. It all seems ok to me.

[nige1]

While a single self-serving statement is very very rarely the only evidence available, the whole idea of taking the TD judgement away seems unnecessary, and will provide such a major change to the whole game, and why?  As far as I can see because the people suggesting it have no faith in TDs and are looking for some sort of utopia, which as always with such hopes will only cause lots and lots of other problems.

In general a TD has various evidence to use.  He weighs it, considers, consults and concludes.  It is a good, workable method with a high success rate.  We have an appeals process to make sure we do not have total reliance on this.  I am less convinced that that is necessary, but it does have two who main advantages, one it gives a forum for upset players to express themselves, two it provides a comfort level for the many who do believe in the appeals process.  It all seems ok to me.

Stating the obvious for the umpteenth time ...

• Most players appreciate the work of directors in providing them with an enjoyable game. We trust them and believe they do their best in difficult circumstances -- including having to cope with over-subjective and overly sophisticated rules. We are grateful to them.
  
• Directors need to use judgement in applying Bridge rules.
  
• Rules that entail subjective judgement are fundamental to the game.
  
• Rules that depend on subjective judgement lead to inconsistent rulings.
  
• Players on the wrong side of inconsistent rulings often regard them as unfair.
  
• Some rules that require subjective judgement are unnecessary. They add no value to the game. Such rules should be dropped.
  
• Some rules could be less subjective without reducing players' enjoyment of the game. Such rules should be simplified and made more objective.
  

[blackshoe]

Some rules that require subjective judgement are unnecessary.

Speaking of subjectivity, this is a subjective opinion.

[nige1]

Some rules that require subjective judgement are unnecessary.

Speaking of subjectivity, this is a subjective opinion.

True :( most opinions are subjective even when they seem obvious :)

[Vampyr]

...With both my partners our discussion about system is limited to what we discuss as we play, and it is never written down (mostly because I made a conscious decision a few years ago to escape from "serious" bridge).

 

Admittedly some of it is a bit non-mainstream, but it is still our partnership agreement.

...

I am surprised that you do not play in a jurisdiction where convention cards are obligatory. Anyway, the problem (apart from the evidence thing) is that while you may not be serious, the opponents might be.

 

When your non-mainstream agreements are not written down, the opponents will have no reason to think that there are inferences available when these bids are not made. Also, if some of the agreements concern early rounds of the bidding, the opponents may wish to have a quick discussion about how to defend against them. I do this all the time.

[blackshoe]

Anyway, the problem (apart from the evidence thing) is that while you may not be serious, the opponents might be.

I'm not sure that answers his question. :lol:

 

When your non-mainstream agreements are not written down, the opponents will have no reason to think that there are inferences available when these bids are not made.

 

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Why should whether the agreements are written down affect the question whether there are such inferences (to my mind, there are always such inferences).

 

Also, if some of the agreements concern early rounds of the bidding, the opponents may wish to have a quick discussion about how to defend against them.

 

The principle of full disclosure would suggest that unusual (or "not mainstream," perhaps) methods should be pre-alerted. IAC, so long as this pair complies with the laws and regulations in force, what are they doing wrong?

[Vampyr]

Anyway, the problem (apart from the evidence thing) is that while you may not be serious, the opponents might be.

I'm not sure that answers his question. :lol:

Yes, I realise that this is another issue.

 

When your non-mainstream agreements are not written down, the opponents will have no reason to think that there are inferences available when these bids are not made.

 

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Why should whether the agreements are written down affect the question whether there are such inferences (to my mind, there are always such inferences).

 

Yes, but if you don't know about the unusual agreements you will not know what inferences are available. For example, if you play that a 1♦ opening shows 1 or more types of hands containing hearts, and your 1♥ opening is natural, the 1♥ opening bid is not alertable, and if you should ask about this unalerted opening bid, the opponents are not required to tell you that certain hands are excluded from this bid. I imagine that most jurisdictions are luckier than the EBU and have regulations that prevent this nonsense, but I am sure that examples can be found that would apply in most other jurisdictions.

 

Also, if some of the agreements concern early rounds of the bidding, the opponents may wish to have a quick discussion about how to defend against them.

 

The principle of full disclosure would suggest that unusual (or "not mainstream," perhaps) methods should be pre-alerted. IAC, so long as this pair complies with the laws and regulations in force, what are they doing wrong?

I find pre-alerting to be very rare, and done only out of the players' sense of fair play. At least in the EBU I don't think that failure to pre-alert unusual (and by whose definition?) methods would ever be considered to violate full disclosure.

[barmar]

Forcing passes are a particular problem as they are rarely included on even the most complete convention card.

I think the biggest problem with forcing passes is that they are contrary to the basic mechanics of the game.

No more so than takeout doubles (double ostensibly means that you don't think the opponent can make the contract) or western cue bids (cue bids usually show something in the suit, but WQB often is used when you DON'T have anything useful in the suit). These things have evolved out of simple bridge logic (takeout doubles are used in situations where it's extremely unlikely that you would have a penalty double). Forcing pass is similar: if the auction has shown that your side is strong enough to bid game, and the opponents bid over it, it's almost certainly a sacrifice, so either your side has to double them or bid over them.

 

This is just standard bidding judgement, used by most experienced players. Unless they've reversed the meanings of pass and double in these auctions, like Meckwell (is it because they bid games so aggressively?), why would anyone bother to document this in their system notes?

[mjj29]

I find pre-alerting to be very rare, and done only out of the players' sense of fair play. At least in the EBU I don't think that failure to pre-alert unusual (and by whose definition?) methods would ever be considered to violate full disclosure.

Yes it would. The EBU's method of pre-alerting is exchanging convention cards at the start of the round, which have a section on the front for 'aspects of system opponents should note'. In clubs of course many people don't do this, but those are generally all playing some standard variation of Acol. When a polish club pair come and fail to bring convention cards I do complain about it for precisely this reason.

[blackshoe]

I always liked the "exchange cards at the beginning of the round" rule. When I first got back to the States, I tried to do that here. Reactions, as I recall, ranged from "no, thank you" to "get that thing out of my face!" :lol:

 

Pre-alerts aren't required in the EBU. Fair enough. But I don't see how you can say, Stephanie, that

If you should ask about this unalerted opening bid, the opponents are not required to tell you that certain hands are excluded from this bid

since it seems to me that

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

requires that those exclusions be disclosed, since they are the result of a partnership understanding, and not general bridge knowledge.

 

Added: I should think that, if one has this kind of agreement in place, and is in England, one should at least try to exchange cards with the opponents at the beginning of the round.

[Vampyr]

I find pre-alerting to be very rare, and done only out of the players' sense of fair play. At least in the EBU I don't think that failure to pre-alert unusual (and by whose definition?) methods would ever be considered to violate full disclosure.

Yes it would. The EBU's method of pre-alerting is exchanging convention cards at the start of the round, which have a section on the front for 'aspects of system opponents should note'.

I understand that. But the OP doesn't use a convention card, and another poster was suggesting that pre-alerting can and should be done even without one.

[dan_ehh]

Forcing passes are a particular problem as they are rarely included on even the most complete convention card.

I think the biggest problem with forcing passes is that they are contrary to the basic mechanics of the game.

No more so than takeout doubles (double ostensibly means that you don't think the opponent can make the contract) or western cue bids (cue bids usually show something in the suit, but WQB often is used when you DON'T have anything useful in the suit). These things have evolved out of simple bridge logic (takeout doubles are used in situations where it's extremely unlikely that you would have a penalty double). Forcing pass is similar: if the auction has shown that your side is strong enough to bid game, and the opponents bid over it, it's almost certainly a sacrifice, so either your side has to double them or bid over them.

 

This is just standard bidding judgement, used by most experienced players. Unless they've reversed the meanings of pass and double in these auctions, like Meckwell (is it because they bid games so aggressively?), why would anyone bother to document this in their system notes?

This is basically correct, but there is a very big difference:

Players usually discuss details of their takeout doubles, e.g. "doubles are for takeout through 4♠s", and this is usually reflected in the system card. Same thing regarding cuebids. In my partnership we have extensive agreements about which cuebid shows what and in which situation.

Of course, this does not guarantee the prevention of accidents, but at least we are trying.

 

The reason they should document this in the system notes is that sometimes the situation is not absolutely clear, e.g. the the multi which was opened in the other thread, and then the slow pass makes it much clearer.

 

Let me give you another example:

You are red and they are white. The auction: (3♦)-p-(5♦) to you.

Many expert players play that a pass from you now is forcing, the logic being that if the opponents think they can make 5♦ they would usually try to investigate whether they can also make 6♦, so you can reasonably conclude that 5♦ is an advanced sacrifice.

If you make a slow pass, and your partner then doubles with nothing because it is forcing, would you permit this double without proof in form of a written agreement?

[jeremy69]

and another poster was suggesting that pre-alerting can and should be done even without one.

 

In most clubs I play in England players don't have convention cards and are not interested in seeing them either however it is now quite common even without any formal system of pre-alerting to sit down and hear your opponents say something along the lines of "Weak NT, 4cM and Weak Two's in 3 suits" Technically they should have cards but unless what they play is very unusual life goes on ok at this level without them and it is rare to get a complaint on this issue.

[bluejak]

Let me give you another example:

You are red and they are white. The auction: (3♦)-p-(5♦) to you.

Many expert players play that a pass from you now is forcing, the logic being that if the opponents think they can make 5♦ they would usually try to investigate whether they can also make 6♦, so you can reasonably conclude that 5♦ is an advanced sacrifice.

If you make a slow pass, and your partner then doubles with nothing because it is forcing, would you permit this double without proof in form of a written agreement?

Was the pass alerted: if not, why not?

 

But the answer as always is maybe. The trouble with these arguments about principle is that there never is a Yes or No answer. Single self-supporting statements are a weak form of evidence but they are evidence. Whether they are sufficient evidence depends on the factors that the TD takes into account.

 

Incidentally I do not consider a written agreement proof: just strong evidence, but as always all factors should be taken into account.

[CamHenry]

Let me give you another example:

You are red and they are white. The auction: (3♦)-p-(5♦) to you.

Many expert players play that a pass from you now is forcing, the logic being that if the opponents think they can make 5♦ they would usually try to investigate whether they can also make 6♦, so you can reasonably conclude that 5♦ is an advanced sacrifice.

If you make a slow pass, and your partner then doubles with nothing because it is forcing, would you permit this double without proof in form of a written agreement?

Was the pass alerted: if not, why not?

Matt and I play a rather unusual system; we are therefore both more familiar than the average club player (and many tournament players) with the intricacies of the EBU alerting rules.

 

In the situation here, I would not have alerted the pass as forcing, even with that agreement in place, since I did not realise it was alertable. In fact, my reading of OB 5E4 suggests that it is not alertable:

 

Calls above 3NT

Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:

(a)  Artificial opening bids

(B) Lead-directing passes

©  Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other that the suit doubled (or redoubled)

 

It's a forcing, not lead-directing, pass, and is therefore non-alertable.

[mycroft]

To the OP, here's why it can be an issue (over and above showing evidence of your agreements in a misbid/misexplanation case). Please note that I am not impugning the ethics of the OP - there *are* others, though...

 

1) some people want to read the card rather than ask basic questions. If you do not provide a card *as required by your RA*, those people who process visual information better than verbal are at a disadvantage.

 

2) there are pairs whose "non-mainstream" bidding works an awful lot better if they're helped out by partner answering the opponents' questions about the auction (even if it's just a comfort factor of knowing partner's on the same page). If I can look at the card instead of asking, I can frequently get that information without unnecessarily assisting the opponents.

 

3) there are pairs whose verbal explanations are...minimal is a good way of putting it. They actively try to give as little information as possible to the opponents when asked. How much more can they do that if there is no system card requirement!

 

Take the 10 minutes to build a card, *for the benefit of the opponents*. You don't have to look at it again (well, until the agreements change in such a way as to require a card change). It's not a question of seriousness, it's a question of politeness (and adherence to Law, and evidence in case of a mixup (but of course, you don't take the game seriously, so you would just let the TD assume misexplanation and rule against you, so you don't care about the evidence issue, right?))

[jeremy69]

In the situation here, I would not have alerted the pass as forcing, even with that agreement in place, since I did not realise it was alertable. In fact, my reading of OB 5E4 suggests that it is not alertable:

It's a forcing, not lead-directing, pass, and is therefore non-alertable.

 

I was so looking forward to someone saying this but not as much as looking forward to the editor of the OB telling us why we are all wrong about it not being alertable. :(