BBO Discussion Forums: Disagreement over Explanation - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Disagreement over Explanation Switzerland

#61 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2017-October-19, 11:40

View Postjallerton, on 2017-October-13, 16:21, said:

To say that North is the player at fault for "accepting" a non-written explanation is completely missing the point. I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a question in writing and my screenmate has whispered an answer; when I hand them my pen, some take the hint, but others just repeat their answer verbally.

I agree that this part of the regulation is nonsense, and if you acted in this way I would rule that you had not accepted the spoken or gesticulated answer, as you have made more than one attempt to elicit a written answer from your opponent, and there's not much more you can reasonably be expected to do.
0

#62 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,475
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2017-October-20, 15:28

You might not like this regulation, but it's there. And I've been told it's not new this year either. TDs will rule according to it, whether you like it or not.
0

#63 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,612
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 02:23

View Postpran, on 2017-September-24, 16:05, said:

In my world the written questions and answers are the best evidence on what has actually been asked and answered.
Absent such evidence I would rule that although there was agreement that questions were asked no evidence support any claim of misinformation.

This is plainly ridiculous pran - both sides agree that a question was asked. By your rules the lack of a written answer must surely be the issue here.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#64 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,612
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 02:31

View Postbarmar, on 2017-September-26, 10:19, said:

The explainer remembers what she said, she just doesn't remember whether she said it in English or French. I'm not bilingual, but I wouldn't be surprised that if you're going back and forth between languages you might not remember which mode you were in at a particular moment.

I can confirm this - I often cannot remember whether I said (or heard) something in English or German. I even answer in German fairly often when the speaker has addressed me in English and does not understand German at all. My colleagues find this hilarious, of course. :lol:
(-: Zel :-)
0

#65 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,612
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 02:39

View Postnige1, on 2017-October-02, 16:25, said:

The important lesson seems to be that players should start to comply with the rules and directors should start to enforce them.

The important lesson I take from that regulation is that a player should absolutely NOT comply with the rules if giving an explanation. All they are doing is providing evidence against themselves if things go wrong.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#66 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-21, 05:10

View PostZelandakh, on 2017-October-21, 02:39, said:

The important lesson I take from that regulation is that a player should absolutely NOT comply with the rules if giving an explanation. All they are doing is providing evidence against themselves if things go wrong.

Law 21B1(b) said:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

As a written evidence is stronger than a spoken evidence the absence of written questions and explanations makes it more likely that the Director will apply Law 21B1(b) and rule mistaken explanation in such cases.

So it should always be in the interest of a player asking a question or giving an explanation to do so in writing when required by regulation and/or conditions of contest.
0

#67 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,612
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 10:26

View Postpran, on 2017-October-21, 05:10, said:

So it should always be in the interest of a player asking a question or giving an explanation to do so in writing when required by regulation and/or conditions of contest.

It should be, yes, but that is clearly not the case under the current rules. Say for argument that East really had said "penalty" here. If they had written it down you would have ruled against them but as they only said it verbally and disputed having said that, you are not ruling against them. So tell me, what advantage would have East gained from giving a written explanation here?
(-: Zel :-)
1

#68 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-21, 10:55

View PostZelandakh, on 2017-October-21, 10:26, said:

It should be, yes, but that is clearly not the case under the current rules. Say for argument that East really had said "penalty" here. If they had written it down you would have ruled against them but as they only said it verbally and disputed having said that, you are not ruling against them. So tell me, what advantage would have East gained from giving a written explanation here?

If "penalty" is an incorrect explanation then he deserves no "advantage". Do you want him to get away from one infraction of the laws by committing another (i.e. disobeying the rules)?
0

#69 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,612
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 16:03

View Postpran, on 2017-October-21, 10:55, said:

If "penalty" is an incorrect explanation then he deserves no "advantage". Do you want him to get away from one infraction of the laws by committing another (i.e. disobeying the rules)?

He or she may not deserve an advantage but under your rules (s)he will obtain one; and apparently this is standard practice. I think this is appalling. The logical conclusion from your assertion that no advantage should be gained is that the law on this point is an ass.
(-: Zel :-)
1

#70 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,584
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 21:11

View Postpran, on 2017-October-21, 05:10, said:

As a written evidence is stronger than a spoken evidence the absence of written questions and explanations makes it more likely that the Director will apply Law 21B1(b) and rule mistaken explanation in such cases.

The Law that refers to the "absence of evidence to the contrary" only applies when you're trying to decide between MI and misbid, not when you're determining what the explanation actually was. The evidence it's talking about is presumably regarding the pair's agreements -- I think it assumes that the explanation was heard and understood, and the TD just needs to determine if that correctly describes the agreement.

#71 User is offline   jhenrikj 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 2010-June-04

Posted 2017-October-30, 06:57

Adjusting the scores in favor of North is really to open a can of worms. Lets assume North did hear and understood the explanation but still decides to pass. If 3NT makes it's fine, if it doesn't he calls for the TD and claims he has been misinformed. East has no evidence to claim what he told north so what we are doing is allowing North change his mind after the board is played.

The simple solution is of course to assign a split score of 3NTX to NS and 5C to EW, not saying I can support this decision in the law, but the players will fore sure learn to write/demand explanation in writing the next time.
0

#72 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,816
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-October-30, 08:21

if you can't support it in law, you shouldn't do it at all.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#73 User is offline   jhenrikj 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 2010-June-04

Posted 2017-October-31, 01:22

View Postblackshoe, on 2017-October-30, 08:21, said:

if you can't support it in law, you shouldn't do it at all.


On the other hand, I can't find anything in the laws that says I can't do it either, but I do agree with you in principle.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users