Year End Congress 2

[nige1]

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extremely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

I agree with most of what mycroft writes but my point is that the director should not rely on a player volunteering a self-serving statement. As in this case, If a legal argument seems obvious, logical, and irrefutable, then the director should consider it, even if no player mentions it. But if, on the contrary, the argument is incredible then he should ignore it.

[dburn]

It occurs to me that the current regulations may best be summarised as: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

 

If the United States Army has abolished this precept, surely the English Bridge Union can do likewise.

[Chris L]

It strikes me that in this situation a proper question could be something like: "Should this call have been alerted?"

 

I would rule such a question not as asking for an explanation of opponents' call (which can create UI), but (Law 9A3) an attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

 

In my experience (limited for the most part to one particular player at my club who also played the "French Defence to 1NT" before announcements were introduced, but there have been a few others) whenever anyone asks about an unannounced or unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT, they always have ♣. Most of the time they hear "Sorry, Stayman" or whatever and can double to show ♣ legally - but on the rare occasion they hear "It wasn't alerted; it shows ♣" they have probably compromised partner.

[bluejak]

It occurs to me that the current regulations may best be summarised as: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

 

If the United States Army has abolished this precept, surely the English Bridge Union can do likewise.

Are you really suggesting that actions by the US army should be considered something to be followed by anyone anywhere in any way?

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the particular action in question. Unless, of course, you hold the view that the US Army can do nothing right.

[bluejak]

I couldn't possibly comment. :)