[richlp]

 szgyula, on 2016-January-31, 01:37, said:

I was in a strange situation yesterday and I do not know what is the proper procedure: Auction went like 3S - 4C (me). My partner was asked what the 4C was and he explained it correctly as "leaping Michaels", i.e. clubs and hearts, game force. The explanation was correct, my bid was not (we just introduced this convention and I forgot) -- I had a long C. My partner had a very good H holding so he bid H.

What are you supposed to do in this situation? I heard the explanation which "woke me up". I have to ignore it as it is UI. Thus, I repeated C since I had a single small H. My partner repeated H. My partner is clearly allowed to "weak up" and realize the bid error -- with proper disclosure, of course. When am I allowed to "wake up" and act on it? With screens, I can, since I do not hear the explanation. Unfortunately there were no screens.

It was MP so it did not matter much -- bottom for us -- but in IMP it does make a huge difference.

It doesn't have an impact on the ruling (unless it applies to the midbid vs misinformation question) or what you should have done, but when you agreed Leaping Michaels did you also agree that it applied in non-leaping form such as the current auction?

[blackshoe]

"measure of common sense" would imply that you don't change the meaning of the words as written.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-February-04, 15:31, said:

"measure of common sense" would imply that you don't change the meaning of the words as written.

Quite so, since the Laws are so sensibly written.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that when we disagree with the wording of the laws, we should work to get that wording changed, not ignore the wording and apply some other meaning to the law.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-February-04, 19:42, said:

It seems to me that when we disagree with the wording of the laws, we should work to get that wording changed, not ignore the wording and apply some other meaning to the law.

Work to get the wording changed? Have you no memories of last time? It is not realistic.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-04, 22:21, said:

Work to get the wording changed? Have you no memories of last time? It is not realistic.

So the law means whatever the director decides it means? In cases where the law is truly ambiguous and the director has to make a ruling right now, that's fine. Otherwise I think the TD needs to seek guidance from higher authority, and should do so after the fact where he's had to make such a decision.

I do recognize that rarely happens. As for last time, some things got changed, some didn't. That, unfortunately, is in the nature of committees.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2016-February-03, 14:31, said:

I like to assume that when the law says "evidence", it means "credible evidence", otherwise almost anything can make that sentence useless.

I'm not suggesting that a self-serving statement is automatically not credible. But if the TD has a good reason to disbelieve the player, he can ignore it and follow the "in the absence of evidence" clause.

Quite obviously, you are entirely correct that "evidence" in law 75D should be read as evidence after the conflict between the self-serving statement and the hand comes to light. After all, the discrepancy is already established as a fact. This "evidence" is -by definition- always present in a 75D case and it is quite obvious that the lawmakers intended their "evidence" to mean "evidence beyond the reason that brought you to law 75D". The situation "without evidence to the contrary" would otherwise never arise.

For people who -nevertheless- reason that the self-serving statement that brought us to law 75D is to be considered as "evidence" in the view of the lawmakers, there is a simple workaround, leading to the same interpretation of law 75D as the one that is obvious to you and me:

There always are two pieces of evidence:
a) The self-serving statement of the player that they play convention X. This is evidence (albeit very weak) that they play convention X.
b) The hand and the actual auction, where the call chosen with the given hand doesn't match convention X at all. This is strong evidence that they did not play convention X at the time the call was made. It is based on facts that all players have already agreed upon: The player held this hand, and made this call.

Obviously evidence b) carries more weight. So, if there is no additional evidence to the contrary we rule MI.

Rik