Disputes of Facts

[Xiaolongnu]

Suppose one side insists that the contract was doubled and the other insists that the contract was not doubled, or anything along this line. How should we rule? An easy, violence for violence, penalty oriented approach is to tell them that since both sides cannot agree, they will both get an Ave- or bottom board or etc for it, then see whether they dare to still not own up.

 

But that is obviously crude and unprofessional. Is there a more efficient and canonical way to deal with it? One that really serves justice instead of simply making a lose lose situation?

[bluejak]

That solution is illegal, so let us not consider it.

 

You ask each person what happened, and listen to the answers, and, to quote Grattan Endicott, you listen to what is not said in the answers. You ask anything you can think of, like, for example, who made the final pass and how [was it a green card? did someone just remove the bidding cards from the table?]. You look at the score-cards. You get all the information you can.

 

Then you decide and you rule. Since it is a judgement decision you tell both sides they can appeal. Above all, you do not worry: you have done your best.

[Xiaolongnu]

Thank you. Related to this, I have a supplementary point. Should the director's judgment be affected and / or based on the past and the records? Suppose now one of the players, maybe even one of the pairs, has a nasty history of being unethical, or has been caught lying or cheating before, or is just generally known to be dishonest in character. (Note that this does not necessarily justify it as accusing them of cheating NOW.) Should the director be more inclined to rule against them as a result? Should he or should he not take this into consideration?

 

On one hand, this seems to be like being biased. On the other hand however, 85 says that in disputes we (as directors) should take into account the "balance of probabilities" and well, this is after all a probabilistic approach. Either way it does not seem right to me.

[aguahombre]

And then, if on appeal you were asked the rationale for the table ruling, you would say what?

[barmar]

Ignoring the ethical issue, when you rule against one of the players in this type of situation, you're merely saying that they made a mistake and they're misremembering. There's nothing unethical about that, people make mistakes all the time. And there's no reason to think that an unethical person is more likely to forget something.

 

So the only reason to take their ethics into account in the decision is because it makes it more likely that they're lying, not just misremembering. And as soon as you allow that they may be lying, you're suggesting cheating.

[Xiaolongnu]

And that is a very serious accusation, more of a disciplinary offence than a procedural one. I wouldn't make that claim unless I am reasonably sure that he has been cheating Here and Now. To what extent could we make this part of our consideration, and to what extent are we entitled to voice our suspicion?

 

On the other hand, related to this, there was once I was playing and not on duty, and an opponent commented that my partner "was very competitive" and it was phrased in a way that implies that she might have cheated. How serious is this claim?

[barmar]

In bridge, as in real life, hiding accusations in euphemisms is a good way to get away with it.

[Free]

Threatening with AVE- for everyone doesn't do any good. There are various scenarios, but when it's top or bottom, then the "wrong" side will never admit they were lying. They'll be happy with their AVE-, it's better than a bottom...

 

I think the best way indeed is to take each person away from the table and ask them how the bidding went exactly, like bluejak says. Perhaps you can first ask who made the final pass, before going over the entire auction. This might open a trap for one of the sides. Usually that will clarify things.

 

If I had to make a decision without any clue, I'd say they doubled. I think this is more likely.

[iviehoff]

Should the director's judgment be affected and / or based on the past and the records? Suppose now one of the players, maybe even one of the pairs, has a nasty history of being unethical, or has been caught lying or cheating before, or is just generally known to be dishonest in character.

There is no bridge-specific guidance on this matter, but purely as a matter of general rule of law, the answer to this has to be "no". Authority is maintained by dispensing justice dispassionately. By lowering yourself to their level, you are corrupted. It also teaches the pair with a history that they have nothing to gain by reforming.

[ggwhiz]

I would just examine the hand of the supposed doubler, the auction and ask why they doubled.

 

If they say my pard showed a balanced 12 count and I have 2 likely trump tricks it's easy enough.

 

If they say I took a shot it's easy enough too.

 

I will just tell the table that since they can't decide, this is all I have to go on and they are welcome to appeal. No personalities or past history involved.

[aguahombre]

What about the director's experience with the situation rather than the players? Is there any weight in the observation that he (we) find it infinitely more likely that the declaring side "forgot" they were doubled than that the defending side "forgot" they hadn't doubled (if the contract was defeated)?

 

Just asking because I don't know, not making an argument that this should or should not be considered. But, it does seem similar to deciding misbid vs. misexplanation; and in this case we are told in the regs which is more likely.

[gordontd]

What about the director's experience with the situation rather than the players? Is there any weight in the observation that he (we) find it infinitely more likely that the declaring side "forgot" they were doubled than that the defending side "forgot" they hadn't doubled (if the contract was defeated)?

 

Just asking because I don't know, not making an argument that this should or should not be considered. But, it does seem similar to deciding misbid vs. misexplanation; and in this case we are told in the regs which is more likely.

We recently had exactly the situation given in the original post, and we decided after a great deal of discussion and consideration to rule that the contract had been doubled, because we thought it was more likely that one side might have unintentionally pulled out a double card than that both members of the other side might have imagined a double that had never happened. (The integrity of all players at the table was not in question). The ruling went to appeal and was upheld on the basis of Law 85A1.

[crazy4hoop]

One thing I like to ask, and bluejak suggested it, is asking who made the final pass. If everyone agrees on it being the same player then his or her partner could not have doubled. Of course, the other suggestions already presented make a lot of sense, too.

[axman]

Suppose one side insists that the contract was doubled and the other insists that the contract was not doubled, or anything along this line. How should we rule? An easy, violence for violence, penalty oriented approach is to tell them that since both sides cannot agree, they will both get an Ave- or bottom board or etc for it, then see whether they dare to still not own up.

 

But that is obviously crude and unprofessional. Is there a more efficient and canonical way to deal with it? One that really serves justice instead of simply making a lose lose situation?

 

A hypothetical presented as this has been presented has no value because no one has told the truth nor has anyone told a lie upon which to rule. This is much akin to dealing with "When did you stop beating your wife".

 

To be of any value you need a real live case, with who said what, the right questions asked and so forth. Trying to get a recipe is a non starter

 

Personally I have been involved with two similar situations. Even though I don't recollect how the TD dealt with the first one my impression was that the TD was highly deficient on both occasion concerning the investigation- even though on both occasions the ruling reflected [correctly] that my account was the accurate one. And what was indelibly disappointing was that both rulings omitted the basis/reasoning for the decision made. That information is vital for the parties in deciding whether the ruling was a fair one.

[Vampyr]

What about the director's experience with the situation rather than the players? Is there any weight in the observation that he (we) find it infinitely more likely that the declaring side "forgot" they were doubled than that the defending side "forgot" they hadn't doubled (if the contract was defeated)?

 

I have had this situation in the past and have ruled that the contract was doubled. As you and Gordon have said, one or two players not noticing or not remembering a double is more likely than two players dreaming one up.

[barmar]

It's not hard to imagine someone planning to double, but then having a brain fart and pulling out the Pass card. Their memory could easily match their plan rather than the actual action.

 

But it's harder to imagine that their partner simultaneously imagined seeing the Double card. So with nothing else to go on, ruling that it was doubled seems reasonable.

[Cascade]

Written bidding provides an accurate record of the auction. Not sure why it is not more popular.

[bluejak]

Can you use past history of a player in your conclusions? Certainly. But you do not only use that, of course.

 

If you are asked to justify your decision you mention everything that you considered, including past history. But you play it down and put it as tactfully as possible.

 

The way to judge is to assemble as many facts as possible then decide. Past history - if known for certain - is one such fact.

[iviehoff]

Written bidding provides an accurate record of the auction.

Not necessarily. There can be problem of legibility with written bidding and a dispute over what someone's writing says, a problem which does not occur with pre-printed bidding cards. What the relatively frequencies of these various problems are, I cannot say. I doubt there is a decisive advantage one way or the other.

[Cascade]

Not necessarily. There can be problem of legibility with written bidding and a dispute over what someone's writing says, a problem which does not occur with pre-printed bidding cards. What the relatively frequencies of these various problems are, I cannot say. I doubt there is a decisive advantage one way or the other.

 

Occasionally there can be issues with legibility. However the relevant regulations specify the form of the calls and adherence to the designated form diminishes the potential for problems with legibility.

[gordontd]

Occasionally there can be issues with legibility. However the relevant regulations specify the form of the calls and adherence to the designated form diminishes the potential for problems with legibility.

I understood there are two different forms in use to indicate the final pass of an auction. Is that the case?

[barmar]

I understood there are two different forms in use to indicate the final pass of an auction. Is that the case?

But since the last call in an auction can never be anything other than Pass, this can't lead to an ambiguous contract. Either the last non-Pass call contained a denomination or it was Double.

 

Legibility can cause some other problems, I admit. H and N can look similar sometimes, which is why I would recommend writing NT instead of just N. And when I write "1", I put a hook at the top so it doesn't look like "l", but this sometimes makes it look like "7". I've never used written bidding, but I suspect that this is rarely a problem -- if you saw an opening bid that looked like a 7, I'll bet you'd ask for confirmation.

[Fluffy]

about last pass... its very likelly that the bidding went something like

 

North 3♠

East pass

South 4♠

West gathers all his cards

North pass and gathers all his bids to the bidding box

East doubles, but south also gathers the bids to the bidding boxes before that.

 

Nobody passes after this. Even through south, west and north have to.

[Cascade]

I understood there are two different forms in use to indicate the final pass of an auction. Is that the case?

 

These are from the New Zealand written bidding regulations:

 

4. Bidding shall proceed with designated marks as follows:

4.1. A diagonal line (/) = pass

4.2. A "C" = clubs

4.3. A "D" = diamonds

4.4. An "H" = hearts

4.5. An "S" = spades

4.6. An "NT" = no trumps

4.7. An "X" = double

4.8. An "XX" = redouble

4.9. A double line (//) indicates that the bidding is ended (e.g. in Figure 2,

West passed, North opened one spade, East doubled, South passed,

West bid one no trump, and all passed).

4.10. Obviously, numerals are used ("1" rather than "one" etc.).

4.11. Alerts: The Player's partner should immediately circle any bid that

requires an alert.

4.12. Delayed alerts: Delayed alerts should be indicated by declarer or

dummy after the auction is finished but before the opening lead is

made with a small plus sign (+) in one corner of the appropriate

square of the bidding pad.

[cloa513]

These are from the New Zealand written bidding regulations:

 

4. Bidding shall proceed with designated marks as follows:

4.1. A diagonal line (/) = pass

4.2. A "C" = clubs

4.3. A "D" = diamonds

4.4. An "H" = hearts

4.5. An "S" = spades

4.6. An "NT" = no trumps

4.7. An "X" = double

4.8. An "XX" = redouble

4.9. A double line (//) indicates that the bidding is ended (e.g. in Figure 2,

West passed, North opened one spade, East doubled, South passed,

West bid one no trump, and all passed).

4.10. Obviously, numerals are used ("1" rather than "one" etc.).

4.11. Alerts: The Player's partner should immediately circle any bid that

requires an alert.

4.12. Delayed alerts: Delayed alerts should be indicated by declarer or

dummy after the auction is finished but before the opening lead is

made with a small plus sign (+) in one corner of the appropriate

square of the bidding pad.

Trouble is sometimes people's writing style makes

a C looks a bit like an S and its possible to screw up other marks too.