[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 17:00, said:

IMO, unless there is relevant official history, the director should try to rule as if players were strangers, about whose integrity he's ignorant. He should do his best not to take previous personal dealings into account. If practical, he should recuse himself when relations are fraught.

gnasher, on 2011-May-09, 11:16, said:

Suppose that we have two players: - Player A is widely believed to be honest, and a friend of the director. - Player B is widely believed to be honest, but not a friend of the director.Nigel, are you really suggesting that the director should penalise Player A by placing less trust in his statements than in Player B's?

No Gnasher, I suggest that the director should discount his previous personal relationships with both players. IMO, if practicable, the director should recuse himself when he finds that mental contortion hard to perform. (I accept that the director may take into account official records and his previous official experience of a player, as a director). In another discussion group, most posters disagreed with me so I think the law-book should clarify the issue. A common example forms the basis for this poll question.

[Hanoi5]

I think if the Director knows something as a fact he should use his knowledge.

[FrancesHinden]

Your second sentence is a huge non-sequitur from the first. The whole point about the 'could have known' wording in the laws is that you can be ruled against under it, with absolutely zero suggestion that you were deliberately breaking the law. Exactly the same applies for Law 16 cases. You might know me to be the most ethical player in the universe, but you can still rule that I selected a call demonstrably suggested by some UI and adjust the score against me: we have simply differed in our judgement either about the suggestion or about the availability of other LAs.

The discussion that led to the original quoted remarks was a suggestion that a pair had a CPU assigning different meanings to a particular bid depending on whether it was made quickly or slowly. And yes, I think the TD should use any knowledge he happens to have in deciding the likelihood of such an understanding, though I would think it extremely rare to rule that it exists without a great deal of evidence.

[campboy]

I agree with Frances. "Could have known" is simply a question of whether the consequence of the infraction was foreseeable and the ethics of the player do not come into it.

Situations where the facts are in dispute are quite different, since then the TD is required to rule "on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect" (law 85A1). In my opinion this means that the TD is required by law to take account of all available evidence, including any from his knowledge of the player.

[nige1]

Poll said:

A director is ruling whether a player "could have known" that an infraction might work to the player's benefit. Should the director use the knowledge from his personal relationship that his friend wouldn't deliberately break the law?

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-09, 14:49, said:

Your second sentence is a huge non-sequitur from the first. The whole point about the 'could have known' wording in the laws is that you can be ruled against under it, with absolutely zero suggestion that you were deliberately breaking the law. Exactly the same applies for Law 16 cases. You might know me to be the most ethical player in the universe, but you can still rule that I selected a call demonstrably suggested by some UI and adjust the score against me: we have simply differed in our judgement either about the suggestion or about the availability of other LAs.

campboy, on 2011-May-09, 17:35, said:

I agree with Frances. "Could have known" is simply a question of whether the consequence of the infraction was foreseeable and the ethics of the player do not come into it

. Frances and Campboy may be right that I chose a poor poll question.

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-09, 14:49, said:

The discussion that led to the original quoted remarks was a suggestion that a pair had a CPU assigning different meanings to a particular bid depending on whether it was made quickly or slowly. And yes, I think the TD should use any knowledge he happens to have in deciding the likelihood of such an understanding, though I would think it extremely rare to rule that it exists without a great deal of evidence.

campboy, on 2011-May-09, 17:35, said:

Situations where the facts are in dispute are quite different, since then the TD is required to rule "on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect" (law 85A1). In my opinion this means that the TD is required by law to take account of all available evidence, including any from his knowledge of the player.

That is a better example and I disagree with Frances and CampBoy. Doesn't that give a director's friends an advantage in rulings where the other pair are strangers?

[barmar]

When the law says "could have known", is it referring to that specific player, players of their caliber, or players in general? It's likely that more experienced players can be expected to know the consequences of an irregularity that a novice probably wouldn't.

If it's one of the first two, the TD needs to judge the player's expertise to decide what they could have known, and their history can inform this.

[axman]

nige1, on 2011-May-09, 19:27, said:

. Frances and Campboy may be right that I chose a poor poll question. That is a better example and I disagree with Frances and CampBoy. Doesn't that give a director's friends an advantage in rulings where the other pair are strangers?

You may have an interest in David DesJardins comments in this rgb thread:

http://groups.google...en&dmode=source

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2011-May-09, 17:35, said:

I agree with Frances. "Could have known" is simply a question of whether the consequence of the infraction was foreseeable and the ethics of the player do not come into it.

Situations where the facts are in dispute are quite different, since then the TD is required to rule "on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect" (law 85A1). In my opinion this means that the TD is required by law to take account of all available evidence, including any from his knowledge of the player.

nige1, on 2011-May-09, 19:27, said:

. Frances and Campboy may be right that I chose a poor poll question. That is a better example and I disagree with Frances and CampBoy. Doesn't that give a director's friends an advantage in rulings where the other pair are strangers?

In some situations, yes. In other situations, the director's knowledge of his friends' tendencies make count against them, e.g. when assigning a score, he might judge that a pair of strangers would have bid a successful thin slam 50% of the time, whereas knowing that his friends do not bid thin slams very often, he might award them only 20% of that outcome.

[campboy]

nige1, on 2011-May-09, 19:27, said:

Frances and Campboy may be right that I chose a poor poll question. That is a better example and I disagree with Frances and CampBoy. Doesn't that give a director's friends an advantage in rulings where the other pair are strangers?

Like Jeffrey, I do not believe that this is necessarily the case. However, so what if it does? I have given an argument that the laws require the TD to take what he knows into account. This may lead to a consequence which you find unpalatable, but that does not stop it being what the laws require.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-May-09, 19:27, said:

I disagree with Frances and CampBoy. Doesn't that give a director's friends an advantage in rulings where the other pair are strangers?

campboy, on 2011-May-10, 02:31, said:

Like Jeffrey, I do not believe that this is necessarily the case. However, so what if it does? I have given an argument that the laws require the TD to take what he knows into account. This may lead to a consequence which you find unpalatable, but that does not stop it being what the laws require.

I didn't know that was the law
I thought that the director should apply only what he gleans about players' characters, when in his official capacity. I'm glad that this is in the "Changing laws" forum..

[gnasher]

"In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

The director's knowledge of the players' characters is evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. If the director bases his view only on the subset of the available evidence, he has broken the laws.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2011-May-10, 07:26, said:

"In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." The director's knowledge of the players' characters is evidence, regardless of how it was obtained. If the director bases his view only on the subset of the available evidence, he has broken the laws.

I (possibly mistakenly) interpreted this to mean the evidence the director is able to collect [as director]. I assumed that he should ignore any character-assessment made in his other roles such as priest, lawyer, psychiatrist, bridge-player, friend, or enemy. If my interpretation is wrong, I hope the law will be changed. In either case, I hope the law will be clarified.

[nige1]

axman, on 2011-May-09, 21:06, said:

You may have an interest in David DesJardins comments in this rgb thread: http://groups.google...en&dmode=source

Thank you axman. I've read the comments. Please would you explain their relevance.

[AlexJonson]

If we look back to the original thread, then we we are weighing the idea that players have hundreds of CPUs,
or maybe a smaller number of 'meta CPUs',
versus the idea that they are honest.

Unless you really want to change the Laws to say that after a hesitation, any fantastic bad result is the way to rule,
then honesty is overwhelmingly probable in this kind of case.

Why?

Because expert players with such a fascination with winning, could just agree a better system.

[mamos]

Don't be silly guys. Directors don't have friends

Mike

[shintaro]

mamos, on 2011-May-13, 03:15, said:

Don't be silly guys. Directors don't have friends

Mike

some of us do mike but we would / could still rule against them

[AlexJonson]

I've always assumed that Directors have friends, but I've never met players who have Directors as friends.

[aguahombre]

"Could have known", is not a character judgement. It is an I.Q. estimate.

If A director who knows me rules I couldn't have known, I would feel insulted.

[mycroft]

Could have known is a bridge judgement, or a skills judgement, but has nothing to do with intelligence.

If someone trying to cheat would have done the same thing, knowing it would benefit him, then unless you're a dead novice, you "could have known". We're *sure* you didn't do it for that purpose, but for those who *do*, we can't say, for legal reasons, "we think you're trying something on", but we can say "someone who was trying something on would have done the same thing, you *could have known* that it would help, so the Laws say we have to rule that way." That way, we get the cheaters without having said anything actionable. Yes, it means that others get caught in the trap. It's better that way, really.

[aguahombre]

ok, Bridge IQ. No difference, nothing new, same result; and same insult if the TD rules in my favor.