[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Herman De Wael]

Eric Landau wrote:
>> 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.
> 

No Eric, what I am saying is that the cases we are discussing are by 
nature like this. You cannot have a case like this where both partners 
testify to no agreement. Simply impossible. You are trying to disprove 
my points of view by coming up with hypothetical examples that are 
impossible.

Take the case of Alain's 4414. Both partners have understood that 3Di 
showed a singleton. It is then impossible for both to also testify 
that they have absolutely no basis on which to support such an 
understanding.

Not only can they not provide any evidence for there not being an 
understanding, they are providing us with evidence for the understanding!


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html