[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Eric Landau]

On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> Eric Landau wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>>
>>> Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out
>>> that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call
>>> than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to
>>> some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to
>>> presume ...).
>>
>> "...in the absence of evidence to the contrary".  I trust we do know
>> the difference between that and "it is up to him to prove..."
>
> Yes, so just substitute my phrase with: it is up to him to provide
> evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry for being slack with my wording.
> In the cases we are talking about, such evidence is of course absent.
>
>>> Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky
>>> guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding".
>>> He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from  
>>> that. But
>>> he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done.
>>
>> The TD gets to look at the player's hand too, and if it is consistent
>> with the player's story that's one piece of "evidence to the
>> contrary".  But if a TD determined to exercise a presumption of
>> misexplanation requires him to "prove" otherwise, the player's hand,
>> CC and notes, together, will not satisfy.  The TD should make an
>> ordinary (L85) balance-of-probabilities finding.  "The director is to
>> presume... in the absence of evidence to the contrary" requires
>> "absence of evidence to the contrary" -- it is a directive that tells
>> the TD only what to do when he can find no actual evidence to  
>> consider.
>
> But these cases are all of that nature! We are talking about two
> players who maintain that they have no agreement, yet both know
> precisely what was happening. So by definition they cannot provide any
> evidence that they do NOT have the agreement they apparently have.

Huh?  We have a player who testifies that they have no agreement.   
Now that's not determinative or definitive evidence, and it may be  
discounted as self-serving, but it's certainly evidence, and cannot  
be simply ignored completely.  Then we have a second player who  
testifies to the same thing.  That's two pieces of evidence.  If we  
have no reason to think they're lying, then the "balance of  
probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the  
evidence" [L85A1] is apparent.  Herman is apparently telling his  
players that it is up to them to make a positive case that they are  
telling the truth, while simultaneously telling them that their  
testimony will be "by definition" worthless.

>>> I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the  
>>> vast
>>> majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more
>>> than they are telling.
>>
>> Perhaps we should waterboard them.  Seriously, ISTM that any director
>> who can say this lacks sufficient competence at "ascertain[ing] the
>> facts" [L85A] to be plying his trade.  Perhaps I'm particularly naive
>> for a TD, but it is only on the very rarest of occasions that I ever
>> feel like I might have "reason to believe that [the] players  [whom I
>> am questioning] know more than they are telling".
>
> But we all know the facts. We have one player who tries to use a
> particular call to show a particular hand (like Alain with his 4414
> bidding 3Di) and another one who apparently understands (Alain's
> partner bidding 4He or whatever his second suit actually was).
> Moreover these facts are NOT in dispute. The players are honest, and
> we may even believe them when they say they have not talked about
> this. Yet there is an apparent agreement - probably based on negative
> inferences.

Any time any two people guess at anything and come up with the same  
answer we have a similarly meaningless "apparent agreement".  By this  
logic, if this pair doesn't have a matchpoint disaster, then they  
must have an agreement.  Even if Herman is 100% convinced that they  
are honest and are telling the truth when they claim not to have an  
agreement, he will rule that they have an agreement.  "By  
definition."  Whatever happened to the TD's  obligation to "ascertain  
the facts"?

> Now I don't really care that I have to make a decision on whether or
> not to believe these players. I am saying that even if they have not
> discussed this sequence, they do have "partnership experience". As
> such, the meaning had to be conveyed to the opponents. If it hasn't, I
> shall check for damage.

When I "have to make a decision on whether or not to believe these  
players", it matters to me whether or not they're telling the truth.   
Herman apparently finds no such connection.  Why interrogate, why  
investigate, why worry one's pretty little head about finding the  
facts, when it's so much easier to just assume that they are lying  
and cheating "by definition" (all bridge players are liars and  
cheats, right?) regardless of any evidence, skip all that hard stuff,  
and just straightaway "check for damage".
>

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net