[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Hans van Staveren]

Herman De Wael:

The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence
alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone
overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the
written evidence was substantiated by other evidence.

John (MadDog) Probst:

"Have you made this misbid in this partnership recently?"

"No" - score stands (make a report to a recorder file, or better still
get pissed with the other TDs now and then which is how we do it in
the UK.)

Richard Hills:

In my opinion Herman's support for the idea, "written evidence alone
should not be enough to rule misbid" is tantamount to "guilty until
proved innocent".  In my opinion MadDog's approach of "verbal evidence
alone is enough to rule misbid in the absence of counterweighting
evidence" much better satisfies the "balance of probabilities"
requirement of the 2007 Law 85A1.

[HvS]

Let me support HdW a bit here. In the past I have ruled misinformation even
when the convention card supported the players. However, that was in cases
where the convention card was clearly that of another pair. What tends to
happen is that a casual partnership discusses system before the game, and
one pops out of his pocket a neat card: "Shall we play this?". The other
concurs and they play. Now the convention card, although on the table, and
agreed upon, is not the reflection of the players agreements. It could even
be(and usually is) that there are agreements on the card one of the players
has not even seen.

In this case the convention card itself is in essence misinformation.

Of course, in a regular partnership, the convention card tends to tell the
truth, although even there I have seen cases where the one in charge of the
card has made an alteration the other has not really seen.

Hans van Staveren