[blackshoe]

Quote

How can East's statement be evidence to the contrary?

How can it not?

Quote

That's the very statement whose correctness is in question.

So what? You may discount it (it is self serving), but it's still evidence.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

Quote

How can East's statement be evidence to the contrary?

How can it not?

Quote

That's the very statement whose correctness is in question.

So what? You may discount it (it is self serving), but it's still evidence.

It's evidence of what East THINKS is correct, but how does that tell you one way or the other whether he IS correct? Whether what he thinks is true is the very question -- is there some inherent presumption of correctness that makes this useful?

Maybe the actual point is that this is irrelevant "evidence to the contrary". It's like saying that the fact that someone is on trial is evidence that he may be guilty.

In any case, the fact that West bid with only 3 HCP is evidence that the explanation is incorrect, so these two essentially cancel each other out. Now you have to find independent evidence upon which the decision should be made. And the law says that in absence of this, you presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

Quote

How can East's statement be evidence to the contrary?

How can it not?

Quote

That's the very statement whose correctness is in question.

So what? You may discount it (it is self serving), but it's still evidence.

Since most of your posts on directing issues are pretty good, I guess that you got East and West mixed up somewhere. (Or maybe I got them mixed up.) Otherwise this just doesn't make any sense to me. Your position seems to be equivalent to the following:

My statement:
My brother has brown eyes.

You want to use this statement as evidence that this statement is true, whether it actually is true or false.

In reality my statement isn't even evidence that I have a brother. Seriously: I do have a brother. (Do I or am I kidding you? Again?)

_________________________

The only evidence that East's statement gives is that East gave this statement. If you make the reasonable assumption that East is a normal, ethical player you can probably consider it evidence that East believed it to be true at the time.

But it does not constitute any evidence at all that the statement is true. In fact, it isn't even self serving. After all, at the time that East made the statement he wasn't even remotely aware that a director might be called later.

So, there is no evidence at all that East's statement is true (other than the fact that West didn't correct it, which is self serving). Therefore, the TD assumes misinformation, in accordance with law 75C.

_________________________

You can even look at it in a third way: Suppose that you are correct and suppose that the fact that East made the statement is actually evidence that East's statement is true. Then all misexplanations without other evidence would be ruled bidding mistakes. Then tell me why would the lawmakers write a sentence in law 75C that the TD is supposed to assume misinformation lacking evidence to the contrary? After all, in every single case there would be evidence to the contrary. In every single case where a TD needs to decide misinformation or misbid, the player gave an explanation. If that explanation itself would be evidence that this explanation is true, there would always be 'evidence to the contrary'. In that case the sentence in Law 75C would just be a waste of paper and ink. You can safely assume that the lawmakers did not intend to waste paper and ink. Therefore, it was not their intent to consider the explanation itself as evidence that it is true.

Rik

[Trinidad]

After my last post, a psychologist would probably be fairly sure that I have a brother with blue eyes.

But after this post, he is not so sure anymore.



Rik

[blackshoe]

The auction has gone (1♠)-X-(3♠)-all pass.

At some point, someone asked opener what his partner's 3♠ bid meant, and was told it was a limit raise.

Now we are asked to determine whether this explanation was correct. So we investigate. We ask opener what 3♠ would mean if doubler had passed, or had overcalled. We ask responder the same questions. We ask to see both system cards. We ask if they have relevant system notes available. We look at the responder's hand (after the play is over!) to see if it indicates either way. We gather all this evidence, and we base our ruling on the question of MI or misbid on the preponderance of it. If we can find no evidence that it was a misbid, we must rule that it was misexplanation. That is what Law 75 requires us to do. Now, if you want to eliminate the opener's original explanation in deciding "preponderance of the evidence" you go ahead, but I think you're wrong to do that. In my opinion, it is evidence. Opener may turn out to have been mistaken, and other evidence may lead us to that conclusion, but that doesn't make the original explanation any less pertinent.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

The auction has gone (1♠)-X-(3♠)-all pass.

At some point, someone asked opener what his partner's 3♠ bid meant, and was told it was a limit raise.

Now we are asked to determine whether this explanation was correct. So we investigate. We ask opener what 3♠ would mean if doubler had passed, or had overcalled. We ask responder the same questions. We ask to see both system cards. We ask if they have relevant system notes available. We look at the responder's hand (after the play is over!) to see if it indicates either way. We gather all this evidence, and we base our ruling on the question of MI or misbid on the preponderance of it. If we can find no evidence that it was a misbid, we must rule that it was misexplanation. That is what Law 75 requires us to do. Now, if you want to eliminate the opener's original explanation in deciding "preponderance of the evidence" you go ahead, but I think you're wrong to do that. In my opinion, it is evidence. Opener may turn out to have been mistaken, and other evidence may lead us to that conclusion, but that doesn't make the original explanation any less pertinent.

Thank you for clarifying clearly that we do not have a misunderstanding of the case.

That means that you think that a statement in itself is evidence that the statement is true.

In this case, the statement is: "We agreed that 3♠ is a limit raise." It is your job to investigate whether this statement is actually true. The statement in itself is no evidence that it is true. That is faulty logic of the type that you sometimes see in the watercooler.

After all, as Adam points out, if the statement itself would be evidence that it is true then all accused would be found guilty (unless they can prove their innocence).

Basically, when a hand doesn't fit the explanation of the bid there are two possibilities:
I) The bid was correct and the explanation was wrong. That is an infraction.
II) The bid was wrong and the explanation was correct. That is no infraction.

Law 75C says that the TD is supposed to assume case I) when there is no evidence to the contrary. Law 75C just points out where the burden of proof is. (Similar to accused are innocent until proven guilty.) Obviously (at least to me), the explanation itself and the hand that didn't fit the explanation are not taken as evidence in determining whether it was I) or II).

Rik

[blackshoe]

I know what my job as a TD is, thank you very much.

You don't tell me what I think, I tell you what I think.

I do not think, and did not say that I think, that "a statement in itself is evidence that it is true" What I think is that the statement "our agreement is X" is evidence that the agreement is X. Read that last sentence ten times. If you still don't get it, please go shoot yourself.

I'm done.