Drector approached at end of match

[aguahombre]

Circular? How so?

Good question. If there is only one piece of evidence, there is no path of reasoning which circles around and comes back to it; you just go with it. However, there is rarely only one piece of evidence. Here, we have lots of other evidence. Sven's post #10 follows a logical path.

 

We also have evidence that the TD's conclusion was arbitrary.

[Trinidad]

As someone mentioned upthread, there's never NO evidence, because you always have the player's statement of what happened as evidence. What we're actually being asked to judge is whether to believe that statement -- if that's the ONLY evidence, it's circular to use it to make the ruling.

In practice, it is never the only evidence. The bidder has bid according to meaning I, the explainer has explained meaning II. As soon as there is a MI case, these two pieces of evidence are always there: The explanation is evidence for meaning II, the fact that his partner intended it to mean I when he bid is evidence for meaning I

 

In order for Law 75D to make any sense these two pieces of evidence should be disregarded as "evidence". They should be regarded as the two positions for which evidence is saught. We disregard this "He said - He said" part and look for anything else. That is where "evidence to the contrary" has to start, another interpretation doesn't make sense. (And fortunately this is the accepted interpretation.)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

hm. I think we need to be careful here, Rik. If the bidder has said he bid according to meaning I, that's evidence. But if the TD looks in his hand and says "clearly he bid according to meaning I" that's not evidence, it's assumption. It's probably a pretty good assumption, but it's still an assumption.

[aguahombre]

hm. I think we need to be careful here, Rik. If the bidder has said he bid according to meaning I, that's evidence. But if the TD looks in his hand and says "clearly he bid according to meaning I" that's not evidence, it's assumption. It's probably a pretty good assumption, but it's still an assumption.

We just back up one tick, and call what the TD saw "evidence", and then call the next thing a conclusion rather than an assumption.

[blackshoe]

So it's just not possible he made a mistake and his bid has no relation to what's in his hand?

[Trinidad]

hm. I think we need to be careful here, Rik. If the bidder has said he bid according to meaning I, that's evidence. But if the TD looks in his hand and says "clearly he bid according to meaning I" that's not evidence, it's assumption. It's probably a pretty good assumption, but it's still an assumption.

Simple example:

The auction is 1NT-Pass-2♦*-Pass; 2♥-All Pass *Announced/alerted and explained as a transfer to hearts.

 

Declarer goes down 6 in 2♥, since dummy comes down with a Yarborough with 7 diamonds. The -300 is a top since the opponents are cold for 4 or 5 hearts.

 

Declarer explained meaning I (transfer), dummy has meaning II (natural sign-off). The cards that dummy held and the bid that he made are evidence ("evidence" not "mathematical proof") that dummy thought they were playing natural sign-off responses. The explanation by declarer is evidence that declarer thought they were playing transfers.

 

Now, we have the classic stand-off. Was there MI or was declarer correct and did dummy misbid (or who knows: even psych)?

 

Only at this point Law 75D comes in. We are going to look for evidence supporting that the pair agreed to play transfers (or natural sign-offs or something else). Any evidence is fine, as long as it is independent: A system book would be nice, a CC is great, but another player stating that they used transfers two rounds before, their bridge teacher saying that they play transfers, even the TD knowing that the pair plays transfers, or simple bridge logic (not applicable here, but in other situations) are also sufficient evidence for me.

 

But if there is nothing at all to support that the explanation is correct then I will assume misinformation.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I don't disagree with anything in that. B-)