[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Nope.

Well, you can call it what you like, but the kibbitzer knows that there's an implied threat of eviction if he refuses to answer. Faced with the choice of eviction, the negative consequences (whatever they are) of telling the truth, and lying about what took place, the kibbitzer may choose to lie.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

Apparently I haven't made myself clear. I said that I would bar a kibitzer for willful refusal to assist in my investigation into the facts, or for (in my opinion) lying to me. If he can give me a good reason for his refusal, that might well lead me to let him be. But there was no implication in the posts to which I originally replied that such might be the case.

If there is a regulation requiring kibitzers to say what they've seen, and instructing the TD to eject them if they don't, I will announce that regulation at the start of a session, and if a kibitzer violates it, I will eject him. I've never heard of such a regulation, though.

The original post questions were simple.

1. Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??
Yes, Law 76

2. Can a spectator refuse to get involved for whatever reason?
Yes, no law or regulation obligates spectator to get involved or to answer.
Blackshoe disagrees, saying "In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave". I am still astonished at this.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Oct 24 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

The original post questions were simple.

1. Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??
Yes, Law 76

2. Can a spectator refuse to get involved for whatever reason?
Yes, no law or regulation obligates spectator to get involved or to answer.
Blackshoe disagrees, saying "In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave". I am still astonished at this.

My first reply in this thread was

Quote

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

At the time, I was thinking of a kibitzer who had pertinent information, knew he had pertinent information, and willfully refused to give it. Perhaps because giving it would have annoyed the friends he was kibitzing. I think a kibitzer has the same kind of obligation as does a witness to a car accident, or a murder (same kind, not to the same degree). Of course, in the latter case(s?) there are laws by which the witness can be compelled to testify, and ordinarily there are no such in bridge. I would need a pretty good reason to believe that a kibitzer was willfully withholding pertinent information before I barred him for it, but I certainly have the authority to do so (Law 76A).

[pran]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

peachy, on Oct 24 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

The original post questions were simple.

1. Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??
Yes, Law 76

2. Can a spectator refuse to get involved for whatever reason?
Yes, no law or regulation obligates spectator to get involved or to answer. 
Blackshoe disagrees, saying "In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave".  I am still astonished at this.

My first reply in this thread was

Quote

The laws give no power to the director to compel a kibitzer to answer questions. All he can do is bar that kibitzer from the player area for the rest of the session or event. And that's what I'd do.

At the time, I was thinking of a kibitzer who had pertinent information, knew he had pertinent information, and willfully refused to give it. Perhaps because giving it would have annoyed the friends he was kibitzing. I think a kibitzer has the same kind of obligation as does a witness to a car accident, or a murder (same kind, not to the same degree). Of course, in the latter case(s?) there are laws by which the witness can be compelled to testify, and ordinarily there are no such in bridge. I would need a pretty good reason to believe that a kibitzer was willfully withholding pertinent information before I barred him for it, but I certainly have the authority to do so (Law 76A).

I don't see how Law 76A authorizes the Director to bar a spectator who refuses to speak up for whatever reason. His reasons may be personal and are in no way the Director's business.

Law 76C1 says that "A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director", but it does in no way say that a spectator must speak (when requested by the Director). (My emphasizing)

The comparison with witness duties in a criminal court is IMHO far from being relevant.

I must agree with peachy

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

I don't see how Law 76A authorizes the Director to bar a spectator who refuses to speak up for whatever reason. His reasons may be personal and are in no way the Director's business.

Law 76A says that spectators in the playing area are subject to control of the director, under the regulations for the tournament. So if there are no regulations regarding spectators, their presence is solely at the discretion of the TD.

Quote

Law 76C1 says that "A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director", but it does in no way say that a spectator must speak (when requested by the Director). (My emphasizing)

I never said that the law requires a spectator to answer the TD's questions. In fact, I said just the opposite. But the wording of 76C1 actually prohibits a spectator from speaking as to fact or law unless the TD asks him to do so. That, though, has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Regarding witnesses, I said nothing about "in a criminal court". The scenario I envisioned was regarding a police officer investigating a crime or an accident. Of course, as in bridge, what the laws actually say about that scenario depends on where you are.

I think we've beat this horse to death. Let's find a different one to beat.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

I don't see how Law 76A authorizes the Director to bar a spectator who refuses to speak up for whatever reason. His reasons may be personal and are in no way the Director's business.

Law 76A says that spectators in the playing area are subject to control of the director, under the regulations for the tournament. So if there are no regulations regarding spectators, their presence is solely at the discretion of the TD.

He may bar all spectators, but not just some spectators except for cause. And refusal to speak up is no "cause".

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

Quote

Law 76C1 says that "A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director", but it does in no way say that a spectator must speak (when requested by the Director). (My emphasizing)

I never said that the law requires a spectator to answer the TD's questions. In fact, I said just the opposite. But the wording of 76C1 actually prohibits a spectator from speaking as to fact or law unless the TD asks him to do so. That, though, has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Regarding witnesses, I said nothing about "in a criminal court". The scenario I envisioned was regarding a police officer investigating a crime or an accident.

In our civilized world nobody has any duty to testify to a police officer, witness duty exists only in court. And both your examples represent criminal, not civil cases.

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

Of course, as in bridge, what the laws actually say about that scenario depends on where you are.

I think we've beat this horse to death. Let's find a different one to beat.

Agreed

regards Sven

[barmar]

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

In our civilized world nobody has any duty to testify to a police officer, witness duty exists only in court. And both your examples represent criminal, not civil cases.

Refusing to answer questions from a police officer may be obstruction of justice, unless you're asserting your right against self-incrimination.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there's no analogous Law in bridge.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Oct 23 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 23 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

In practice it means that a kibitzer who refuses to cooperate in the TD's investigation gets invited to leave. I'm not Cal Lightman, but quite often I'll have a pretty good idea when someone lies to me. So it is not the case that your latter statement will necessarily be accepted at face value, at least not by me. OTOH, it's not necessarily the case that the second statement will be a lie — and assuming that it is goes against my sensibilities.

Following this logic, spectators would then be _required_ to give full attention to what happens at the table. There is no law or regulation AFAIK to support this. The TD IMO should not be accusing a spectator of refusing to answer the TD's question when there is no way of knowing whether he did that: he could have honestly not paid attention or he could have paid attention but dishonestly said he did not pay attention. I was not assuming that "not paid attention" was a lie, it could have been either the truth or a lie and the TD has no way of knowing which it was, without access to the spectator's head...

Anyway, I stand by my conviction that it should be allowed for a spectator to not get involved and to be honest about it, with no consequences to that spectator. If you find a law or regulation or CoC to support your opinion, I would be interested in seeing it.

If you ask a player a question, you judge how honest the answer is and how far you can rely on it. This is no different. It is easy enough to have a regulation for kibitzers.

As for coercion, why not? If you watch a tennis match, and are told no flash photography or you get thrown out, that's coercion. It is also fair enough.

While, of course, everything happens, I personally think the number of bloody-minded kibitzers is far outweighed anyway by the number of reasonable ones who would answer a question without all this fuss.

mrdct, on Oct 23 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

You are going to kick a vugraph operator out of the room because they won't tell the director whether or not there was a discernable hesitation?  This has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen - and from a moderator of this forum no less! 

Remind me not to do vugraph operating for any event that you are directing.

You should probably be reported to the Vugraph Operators Union so a formal ban on vugraph can be place on your events.

I think that people who do a job with a bloody-minded unhelpful frame of mind are never much good anyway. Maybe they do have a union telling them to act like total jerks but I doubt it.

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

He may bar all spectators, but not just some spectators except for cause. And refusal to speak up is no "cause".

Certainly it is "cause". When someone makes a reasonable request, not to do so is cause. If a TD asks four kibitzers to move to a different part of the room, three do, one says he will not, he can throw him out.

You cannot force people to act reasonably, but you can certainly kick them out for behaving unreasonably.