Correcting misinformation with Screens

[mjj29]

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?" (OMO 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?

You miss out:

• "Are you guilty of failing to call the director at the time of the irregularity"
  
• "Is your memory of what he said admissible as evidence"
  
• "How do we deal with people who heard 12-14, mis-defended, then use the fact that the answer wasn't written to get a favourable ruling"
  

The evidence here includes what he says he said, what you say he said, what their actual agreement is, what his hand was, whether he plays 15-17 with any other players or at other positions/vulnerabilities, the likelyhood that your misdefence was actually based on thinking he was stronger, your claim that it was (list not exhaustive). The director must weigh all of those to come to a decision. Perhaps you do start by weighting statements by the explainer less if they were not written, but if (for example) this player only ever plays 12-14 with anyone in any seat and has just opened 1NT holding 12-14 points, I'm going to be skeptical about claims that he didn't, in fact, say "12-14".

 

In any case, I am going to at least have strong words with both sides about the desirability of writing all answers as well as questions.

[nige1]

mjj29 hasn't addressed all my questions but I'm happy to give my views about mjj29's...

"Are you guilty of failing to call the director at the time of the irregularity"

IMO, neither side is guilty of this unless they knew a spoken answer is an irregularity so that attention was drawn to it.

Is your memory of what he said admissible as evidence"

Perhaps. But anyway, If the spoken answer is not admissible then it may be irrelevant.

"How do we deal with people who heard 12-14, mis-defended, then use the fact that the answer wasn't written to get a favourable ruling"

Secretary-birds are a common species. Sensible attempts at a cull are to change the rules or to enforce them.

[barmar]

Even when written responses are given, the evidence they provide could easily be disputed. In my experience, the same piece of paper is often used for different hands, and even for answers from both screenmates. So a player could point to "12-14" on the paper, and the opponent could claim that it was from a different board than the one in dispute. So unless we get much more formal in the use of these written questions and answers, they're only a small improvement over the he-said-she-said situation with verbal responses.

[gnasher]

Even when written responses are given, the evidence they provide could easily be disputed. In my experience, the same piece of paper is often used for different hands, and even for answers from both screenmates. So a player could point to "12-14" on the paper, and the opponent could claim that it was from a different board than the one in dispute. So unless we get much more formal in the use of these written questions and answers, they're only a small improvement over the he-said-she-said situation with verbal responses.

Most disputes about what was said result from mishearing, misunderstanding or misremembering. A deliberate attempt to conceal a misexplanation is very rare, so using written explanations on recycled paper is still a lot better than verbal explanations.

[mrdct]

Presumably, among the issues that the director addresses are:

1. "Is your screen-mate guilty of an irregularity?" (IMO Yes)
2. "Is his oral statement a legitimate answer?" (IMO No)
3. "Is his memory of what he said admissible as evidence?" (IMO doubtful)
4. "If so, what weight should the director give it?" (OMO little if anything)
5. Rule-makers can also ask "Are WBF regulations sensible?" (IMO No)

1. It depends. If he said 15-17 when his real agreement was 12-14, it's most certainly an irregularity. That's where the TD needs to step in and discover all of the evidence, weigh it up and determine the facts based on the balance of probabilities.

2. Yes. The oral statement was not following correct procedure, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

3. Yes. All statements made by the players are evidence that the TD needs to take into account.

4. Quite a lot. In a straight he-said-she-said situation the versions of the events reported by the respective parties will be the primary pieces of evidence to consider. mjj29 mentioned a few others to which I would add have a look at their convention card.

5. They are sensible, but like most things there is room for improvement. I would like it to be explicitly stated that where an explanation is given verablly, doubtful points of fact will generally be resolved in favour of the person receiving the explanation.

 

Whilst I guess this is a hypothetical example, I would hope that if and when Nige1 finds himself playing in a WBF competition with screens he will ascertain what his opponents' basic system, suit lengths, NT range, carding and twos are before he pulls his cards out of the first board of the match.

[nige1]

Whilst I guess this is a hypothetical example, I would hope that if and when Nige1 finds himself playing in a WBF competition with screens he will ascertain what his opponents' basic system, suit lengths, NT range, carding and twos are before he pulls his cards out of the first board of the match.

Just a concrete example with questions to see if directors can agree on the basis of a ruling in a simple straight-forward case.

 

Although the system-card specifies 12-14, backing up the no-trump bidder's memory of what he said, assume that no further facts can be gleaned.

 

So far we seem to have established that some directors treat the 1N bidder's memory of his oral "answer" as legitimate evidence, of nearly the same weight as the memory of his opponent who submitted the written question.

 

You can learn from these fora :) Before reading this thread, for example, you might have assumed that an important advantage of a "written answer" regulation is to resolve such disputes, quickly and simply :(

[pran]

I wonder if anybody (other than me) has noted and consider the effect of the change to Law 85 in 2007?

 

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

A. Director’s Assessment

If the Director is 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 shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal.

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.

 

Before 2007 the Director was free to assess facts (if at all he found himself able to) in any way he found suitable.

 

The 2007 laws introduced what can only be understood as a limitation on how the Director shall proceed in assessing the facts. From now on he may only use evidence that he is able to collect. (However WBFLC intended the term "evidence" to be understood)

 

We can only wonder what kind of information WBFLC had in mind that should no longer be available to the Director when assessing facts?

 

However, in a situation with disputed facts: Whatever a player asserts to me, if his assertion is in conflict with what his opponent asserts to me I shall assign a weight of exactly zero to any such assertion that cannot be supported by witness statements or other proofs.

 

Exit any discussion on how we understand "evidence".

 

Bluejak has touched the question of responsibily for an explanation to be correctly understood. I draw a parallell to the alert regulation which (at least in Norway) clearly states that unless the opponent has recognized the alert the Director shall rule that no alert was made. When the screen regulation specifies that questions and answers are to be made in writing then the responsibility that the explanation has been correctly received must be with the player giving the explanation. He has every reason to secure his interests by giving the explanation in writing.

[mrdct]

Before 2007 the Director was free to assess facts (if at all he found himself able to) in any way he found suitable.

 

The 2007 laws introduced what can only be understood as a limitation on how the Director shall proceed in assessing the facts. From now on he may only use evidence that he is able to collect. (However WBFLC intended the term "evidence" to be understood)

 

We can only wonder what kind of information WBFLC had in mind that should no longer be available to the Director when assessing facts?

The 2007 changes are a big improvement as they actually provide guidance as to the burden of proof that needs to be satisfied to establish a "fact" for the purposes of making a ruling. I don't see any limitations in the Director's power to collect evidence; indeed if the game is being played in a jurisdiction where such techniques are allowed he can water-board the players to extract some testimony if he wants.

 

Bluejak has touched the question of responsibily for an explanation to be correctly understood. I draw a parallell to the alert regulation which (at least in Norway) clearly states that unless the opponent has recognized the alert the Director shall rule that no alert was made. When the screen regulation specifies that questions and answers are to be made in writing then the responsibility that the explanation has been correctly received must be with the player giving the explanation. He has every reason to secure his interests by giving the explanation in writing.

The WBF similarly place responsibility on the alerting player to make sure that his opponent if aware the alert (GCC 23) and I fully agree with the approach that if a player denies having seen an alert the strong presumption is that no alert was made. I also think it make perfect sense, and naturally follows, that responsibility for clarity and comprehension of explanations rests with the player giving the explanation and, as I've said before, in every misexplanation/misinterpretation ruling I've ever seen the facts were always determined against the person who gave a misinterpreted verbal explanation.

 

Interestingly, the Google Translation of the Norweigan Screen Regulations indicates a "should" rather than a "must" for the provision of written explanations during the auction. Google translates "svaret skal også være skriftlig" to "the answer should be written" (my emphasis added).

[pran]

[...]

Interestingly, the Google Translation of the Norweigan Screen Regulations indicates a "should" rather than a "must" for the provision of written explanations during the auction. Google translates "svaret skal også være skriftlig" to "the answer should be written" (my emphasis added).

The correct translation of "skal" in this context is shall, not should, and the distinction in Norwegian between "skal" (= shall) and "må" (= must) is rather marginal. (The Norwegian word for "should" is "bør", not "skal".)

 

Be aware that very many words in Norwegian have different meanings depending on context or on how they are spoken (with weight on the first, on the second or split evenly between both syllables in a two-syllable word). The word "skal" in Norwegian can for instance also express intention or expectation rather than commitment.

[mjj29]

However, in a situation with disputed facts: Whatever a player asserts to me, if his assertion is in conflict with what his opponent asserts to me I shall assign a weight of exactly zero to any such assertion that cannot be supported by witness statements or other proofs.

And if you have a non-screens event where both members of one side assert that a player said "X" and both members of the other side said "Y" (or, maybe, only one member, since dummy was on the way to the bar), now you have nothing on which to base your decision and no fall-back to 'it wasn't written'?

[blackshoe]

"If the TD cannot ascertain the facts to his satisfaction, he shall make a ruling that will allow play to continue" (law 85, from memory).

 

This is certainly a legal approach — but it is not the same thing as saying "there was no written statement, therefore I rule that your oral statement to me is not evidence".

[pran]

And if you have a non-screens event where both members of one side assert that a player said "X" and both members of the other side said "Y" (or, maybe, only one member, since dummy was on the way to the bar), now you have nothing on which to base your decision and no fall-back to 'it wasn't written'?

Exactly.

But this is a situation we have had for years (and still have when no screens are in use), and we have handled it.

 

With screen regulations we have a tool that helps the Director in such cases. So that is what TD should use.

[barmar]

The word "skal" in Norwegian can for instance also express intention or expectation rather than commitment.

That's also true in English. "I shall see you tomorrow." However, on the west side of the pond at least, the word is not used very much in common speech, it's somewhat archaic. Most would say "I will see you tomorrow" or "I'll see you tomorrow." It's more often found in poetic contexts: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

[bluejak]

I would like it to be explicitly stated that where an explanation is given verablly, doubtful points of fact will generally be resolved in favour of the person receiving the explanation.

The recipient of the information can easily make it clear he expects an answer in writing. Furthermore, in over 90% of cases the question and answer are neither in writing. I see no reason with two players 100% at fault in not following the rules why we should rule in favour of one rather than the other.

 

:ph34r:

 

You can learn from these fora :) Before reading this thread, for example, you might have assumed that an important advantage of a "written answer" regulation is to resolve such disputes, quickly and simply :(

I would still do so, and have read nothing that suggests otherwise.

 

We are discussing how to rule where the rules are not followed. Rulings based on regulations being followed tend to be very boring and simple.

[mrdct]

The recipient of the information can easily make it clear he expects an answer in writing. Furthermore, in over 90% of cases the question and answer are neither in writing. I see no reason with two players 100% at fault in not following the rules why we should rule in favour of one rather than the other.

The deficiency in the current laws and regulations is that whilst it is quite explicit that it is the responsibility of the alerting party to ensure that his screenmate is aware of the alert, the laws and regulations are silent as to the extent to which a similar obligation exisits for the party providing an explanation to ensure that his screenmate has understood the explanation.

 

In the absence of other evidence, if the alerter says he said "X" and his screenmate says he heard "Y", I am going to take those representations on face value and conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that whilst the alerter did say "X" he wasn't very clear and his screenmate heard "Y". Giving an unclear explanation is tantamount to giving a misexplanation, so if the unclear explanation gave rise to damage, I will rule against the person who gave the unclear explanation. I will certainly caution both parties to follow the correct procedure of written Q&A, but the laws guide us that these sorts of transgressions are not ordinarily subject to penalty.

[bluejak]

You do not think a player who allows his opponent to break the rules and does not call the TD has any responsibility?

[nige1]

You do not think a player who allows his opponent to break the rules and does not call the TD has any responsibility?

Presumably, it is also incumbent on everyone to call the director, immediately, whenever a player

• wrongly alerts a call or
• prematurely picks up his bidding cards or
• incorrectly designates a card played from dummy.

[AlexJonson]

Interesting thread, I guess.

 

However, I don't understand the start point (OP).

 

Seems clear to me that the old laws at point 1 were very restrictive (as written) and the new laws at point 1 allow a load of latitude to TDs.

[mrdct]

You do not think a player who allows his opponent to break the rules and does not call the TD has any responsibility?

This is another "must", "should", "shall", "may" situation:

 

Law 9A: "... may draw attention to an irregularity ..." (failure to do it is not wrong).

Law 9B: "... the Director should be summoned at once ..." (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised).

 

If my opponents "break the rules" on matters of no consequence to my quiet enjoyment of the game, I am under no obligation to draw attention to the irregularity or call the Director. I may be putting at risk some of my rights for rectification, but I'm doing so with eyes wide open.

 

If I'm having difficulty seeing my screenmate's alerts and/or understanding his explanations (verbal or written) I'll first ask him to be more clear and only if that doesn't work would I consider calling the director to ask him to clarify correct procedure for my screenmate. I once played in a match in World Championship where for the first couple of boards my screenmate didn't alert anything where there had clearly been a few alertable calls. I simple wrote on the notepad, "pls alert anything artificial" and for the rest of the match everything was fine and I didn't need to waste the TD's time or rub my screenmate up the wrong way.

[bluejak]

I didn't say that you had to call the TD. When my screenmate starts telling me complicated stuff I just say "please write it down". Then they always do. But if I fail to do that and misunderstand something which I know should have been written and I know would be clearer written then it is partly my fault.

 

You say "If my opponents 'break the rules' on matters of no consequence ..." then sure, don't we all. But speaking things that lead to MI are not matters of no consequence.

[jallerton]

The WBF similarly place responsibility on the alerting player to make sure that his opponent if aware the alert (GCC 23) and I fully agree with the approach that if a player denies having seen an alert the strong presumption is that no alert was made. I also think it make perfect sense, and naturally follows, that responsibility for clarity and comprehension of explanations rests with the player giving the explanation and, as I've said before, in every misexplanation/misinterpretation ruling I've ever seen the facts were always determined against the person who gave a misinterpreted verbal explanation.

 

It sounds as though you have not read the thread I started on IBLF two years ago. My partner was given a verbal explanation which she clearly misunderstood. The TD judged that my partner would have acted differently had she understood the explanation correctly. He assigned to my opponents the normal result had the explanation been correctly understood, but my side kept the (unfavourable) table score.

 

The TD did not explain the legal basis for this, but it seems that either my partner was deemed to have committed a "wild or gambling action" or that by accepting a verbal explanation we were deemed to be an offending side.

 

If you don't like that ruling, consider this. According to a senior EBL/WBF TD, if this situation were to re-occur in a future EBL event, the "correct" ruling would be to allow the table result to stand for both sides!

 

It is therefore perhaps not surprising that Gnasher can only recall having received two written explanations during the course of playing circa 300 boards in Poznan.

[blackshoe]

The TD did not explain the legal basis for this…

 

Was he asked to explain it?

[nige1]

... According to a senior EBL/WBF TD, if this situation were to re-occur in a future EBL event, the "correct" ruling would be to allow the table result to stand for both sides! It is therefore perhaps not surprising that Gnasher can only recall having received two written explanations during the course of playing circa 300 boards in Poznan.

It's surprising that Gnasher received as many as two written explanations. Presumably, such finicky pairs are ignorant of current legal interpretations.

[gnasher]

I didn't ask many of my questions in writing either, so I can't complain.

 

Personally I think that the rules should acknowlege what happens in practice. I'd be happy with rules that said:

- The players should be allowed to communicate by any means that they both accept, as long as the information doesn't reach the other side of the screen.

- Either player can insist on explanations being given in writing.

- If there is a dispute about what was said or gestured, each player gives his version of events and the director uses his judgement to determine what actually happened.

- If miscommunication occurs, the director uses his judgement to decide whose fault it was.

 

That is, the players spend their time playing bridge, rather than laboriously and unnecessarily writing explanations, and the directors do what they're good at.

[pran]

I didn't ask many of my questions in writing either, so I can't complain.

 

Personally I think that the rules should acknowlege what happens in practice. I'd be happy with rules that said:

- The players should be allowed to communicate by any means that they both accept, as long as the information doesn't reach the other side of the screen.

- Either player can insist on explanations being given in writing.

- If there is a dispute about what was said or gestured, each player gives his version of events and the director uses his judgement to determine what actually happened.

- If miscommunication occurs, the director uses his judgement to decide whose fault it was.

 

That is, the players spend their time playing bridge, rather than laboriously and unnecessarily writing explanations, and the directors do what they're good at.

Fine - if you add one more point:

- If the Director is unable to judge exactly what happened he rules in favour of the player receiving information, i.e. he rules misinformation.