Correcting misinformation with Screens

[blackshoe]

If the WBF wishes to specify in their regulations that only written evidence of explanations is admissible, they are welcome to do so. Until they do, I disagree with you, Nigel. I don't read the regulation that way.

[mrdct]

The rules of evidence for bridge purposes are basically embodied in Law 85:

 

LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS

 

When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

 

A. Director’s Assessment

 

1. 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.

 

2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.

 

B. Facts Not Determined

 

If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

The director needs weigh-up all forms of evidence, be that written or verbal, and which may include assertions, representations, prior history, hearsay, polygraph tests, and wire-taps. No individual piece of evidence is likely to be persuasive of itself, but in total the director just needs to balance it all up and determine the facts. If South says "West said it showed 12-14" and West says "No I didn't, I said 15-17" both of those statements are of evidentiary value but may not be enough to reach a conclusion. But if we start to take other pieces of evidence into account, we may be able to tip the scales sufficiently determine the facts.

 

WBF GCC#15 is quite specific that it is the duty of the person who has alerted to make sure that his opponent has seen the alert. In situations where there is a dispute about whether or not a bid was alerted, there is a very strong presumption that it was not alerted and the facts would almost always be determined under Law 85 that there was no alert with all of the related consequences. Misinterpreted verbal explanations behind screens is an analagous situation where I believe it is strongly implied that the accuracy and clarity of explanations is a responsibility of the person giving the explanation. If that person chooses to verbalise their explanation they are taking a serious risk that they will be misinterpreted and in applying Law 85 I would generally give more weight to what the receiver inferred than what the provider claims to have said.

[bluejak]

IMO ...

• In general, results from illegal sources although seemingly relevant evidence, are legally inadmissible. (e g from polygraphs, wire-taps, and so on in some courts).
• The conditions of contest for WBF screen events stipulate that the medium for questions and answers must be writing.
• Other media must be illegal, for such communications.

Agreed.

 

Hence, in WBF jurisdiction, although seemingly relevant evidence, oral questions and answers are inadmissible.

Doesn’t follow at all. We use the evidence we have: we apply greater weight to some than others.

 

Also, in common sense, allowing such evidence would make a mockery of the taboo against it.

Nonsense. Not using available evidence is silly.

[nige1]

When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

A. Director’s Assessment

1. 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.

2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.

B. Facts Not Determined

If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

The rules of evidence for bridge purposes are basically embodied in Law 85 [above]:

The director needs weigh-up all forms of evidence, be that written or verbal, and which may include assertions, representations, prior history, hearsay, polygraph tests, and wire-taps. No individual piece of evidence is likely to be persuasive of itself, but in total the director just needs to balance it all up and determine the facts.

If South says "West said it showed 12-14" and West says "No I didn't, I said 15-17" both of those statements are of evidentiary value but may not be enough to reach a conclusion.

Whatever West said, IMO, under WBF regulations, his oral communication was not an answer. Bluejak and Mrdct may have a different opinion on that. Nevertheless, I hope we can all agree that, prima facie, this evidence is enough for a PP against West.

[mrdct]

I don't agree with that at all. I have never seen a procedural penalty issued for a player verbalising an explanation behind screens and to do so would be quite silly. Players who choose to verbalise their explanations do so at their own risk and will usually have the facts determined in favour of their non-offending screenmate in the event that a dispute arises which to my mind is a fair enough price to pay. This discussion possibly belongs in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" section as there would be merit in Screen Regulations providing clear guidance to directors as to how to handle situations where there is a dispute about what explanation was given.

 

The current WBF screen regulations don't actually use the word "must" in describing the manner in which explanation are given:

 

A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer ... At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

From the preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

 

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

I would hone in on the phrase "the reply is also in writing" where the word "is" to my mind imparts a similar concept to the word "does" which describes the correct procedure, but does not suggest that a violation be penalised.

 

I've played a lot of bridge with screens and also vugraphed quite a lot of bridge with screens and in my experience:

 

- 98% of the time questions about bids are made by pointing at the bid you want an explanation of and/or looking inquisitively at your screenmate;

- 90% of explanations are either whispered, conveyed by hand signal or indicated by pulling a different bidding card out of the box (i.e. for a transfer);

- written explanations tend to only be given if they are a bit complex or if the questioner has explicitly requested a written response by handing a pen to his screenmate or pointing at the notepad on the table;

- I have never seen anyone use the WBF alert procedure of placing the alert card on the bid and waiting for their screenmate to return it. Most commonly people overtly point at the alertable bid with or without an alert card in hand.

- On 100% of occasions where I've seen disputes about what verbal explanation was given, these have always been ruled on the basis of what the receiver of the explanation thought he heard.

[pran]

I don't agree with that at all. I have never seen a procedural penalty issued for a player verbalising an explanation behind screens and to do so would be quite silly. Players who choose to verbalise their explanations do so at their own risk and will usually have the facts determined in favour of their non-offending screenmate in the event that a dispute arises which to my mind is a fair enough price to pay. This discussion possibly belongs in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" section as there would be merit in Screen Regulations providing clear guidance to directors as to how to handle situations where there is a dispute about what explanation was given.

 

The current WBF screen regulations don't actually use the word "must" in describing the manner in which explanation are given:

A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer. At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing.

 

You misread the regulation:

 

It is the question that may be asked, not the manner in which it is asked. "by written question" and "in writing" are absolute conditions, not options.

 

Except for that I completely agree with your comment :rolleyes: :)

[bluejak]

I do not understand this. Quite simply, we run a game as it happens and try to sort out problems. If you want to play let's pretend it is not a game and apply the Laws pedantically and with no thought of commonsense, the bridge-laws mailing list is at your service.

 

Pretending that someone has not said something he has said is childish, pointless, and akin to sulking because a player makes the final pass in some way other than the official. Let us get away from that sort of thing.

[pran]

I do not understand this. Quite simply, we run a game as it happens and try to sort out problems. If you want to play let's pretend it is not a game and apply the Laws pedantically and with no thought of commonsense, the bridge-laws mailing list is at your service.

 

Pretending that someone has not said something he has said is childish, pointless, and akin to sulking because a player makes the final pass in some way other than the official. Let us get away from that sort of thing.

Let me try to understand your position:

 

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?

 

Of course we both know that you will not expect a Director to give such an uncorroborated statement any weight, that is not my point.

 

My point is that everything you have stated in this thread makes me understand you as considering a statement like that to be evidence and not just an assertion.

 

If that is not what you have intended then please say so and let us have this futile discussion ended. Otherwise I must say that I just cannot understand your position.

[bluejak]

Let me try to understand your position:

 

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?

 

Of course we both know that you will not expect a Director to give such an uncorroborated statement any weight, that is not my point.

 

My point is that everything you have stated in this thread makes me understand you as considering a statement like that to be evidence and not just an assertion.

 

If that is not what you have intended then please say so and let us have this futile discussion ended. Otherwise I must say that I just cannot understand your position.

An assertion or any other thing people say is evidence.

[mrdct]

You misread the regulation:

 

It is the question that may be asked, not the manner in which it is asked. "by written question" and "in writing" are absolute conditions, not options.

 

Except for that I completely agree with your comment :rolleyes: :)

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.

[mrdct]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. B-)

[pran]

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. B-)

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 :rolleyes: )

[blackshoe]

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 :rolleyes: )

 

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]

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?