[bluejak]

Sven: The laws state that a card must be played if partner can see it. You stated that you would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

Jdonn: I still consider the hesitation analogy exactly similar. It is not as though one has any difficulty in this. But what we were told is that if there is a difficulty, it is decided by one irrelevant fact. You said we should use all the facts, but we were told that Norway is prepared to decide on one of the least relevant facts.

We were told that if in doubt, you use this approach: if that is not what he meant, why did he say it? I do not think it unreasonable that I am assuming he meant what he said.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

We were told that if in doubt, you use this approach: if that is not what he meant, why did he say it? I do not think it unreasonable that I am assuming he meant what he said.

Lol this is too much. Both our interpretations (and I'm quite sure mine is the correct one btw, regardless of your belief that how you interpret is the absolute and final authority) involve a situation of doubt. It is simply a question of when the doubt occurs.

Aside from that, you have done nothing to convince me that what you call "one of the least relevant facts" is anything less than completely relevant. You even seemed to agree earlier that declarer is more likely to have been able to see the card if the defender could see it than if the defender couldn't. Perhaps I just have no idea what 'relevant' means, since to me evidence that is more likely to exist in situation A than in situation B is relevant if trying to determine whether A or B occured.

[bluejak]

You are more likely to get a bid out of turn after the board has been put on the table for play. But determining whether the board has been put on the table seems a pretty pointless way of determining whether there has been a bid out of turn. The fact that it is more likely that partner has seen it if declarer has is true but does not mean partner has, and is not a worthwhile way of going about it.

It is easy enough to find out whether a card is played, and TDs do not find it difficult: why do we have to use something else that is not relevant to the Law?

Let me try another rule to see if I can convince you how silly this approach is. You find out whether the player took a card out of his hand: if he has, then you decide his partner has seen it. Now it is a self-evident fact that his partner is more likely to have seen the card if it has been taken out of the hand than if it has not, but why on earth would you use that to decide?

As for what Sven said, if he did not mean what he said, fair enough, but I still think it is reasonable to assume he meant it: he said that if in doubt you assume partner has seen it if declarer has. Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me.

[Pig Trader]

Quote

It is easy enough to find out whether a card is played, and TDs do not find it difficult

Indeed, I have never found any difficulty. I am a great believer in "action replays" and fine-tuning the replay until everyone is happy that I am seeing a good representation of what happened with the player with the card. If I were ever to not get enough agreement to make a ruling easy, I don't think that I would find the advice about whether declarer could see a card to be helpful when proceding in accordance with Law 85.

Barrie

[barmar]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Sven: The laws state that a card must be played if partner can see it. You stated that you would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

That's not what he said. If declarer could see it, but he could also tell that the other defender couldn't see it, then we wouldn't be in the "when in doubt" situations that requires applying this guideline.

It comes up in a situation like this:

Director comes to table, asks what happened.
Defender: I held the card like this, and it wasn't visible to my partner, and I then put the card back in my hand.
Declarer: No, he held it like this, and it was visible to everyone, before he put it back in his hand.

Director now has to make a decision, based on these two contradictory pieces of testimony. The TD is instructed to assume, in cases like this, where he has nothing else to go on, that if it was visible to declarer then it was also visible to the other defender.

But if the director has reason to believe one player over the other, then he uses his normal judgement process. This instruction doesn't come into play if he's able to make a real decision, only when in doubt.

It's not a perfect criterion, but what is? It's certainly better than flipping a coin.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

It is easy enough to find out whether a card is played, and TDs do not find it difficult: why do we have to use something else that is not relevant to the Law?

If a TD finds the determination easy then this guideline doesn't apply, and thus you don't use something else that's not relevant to the laws. The guideline would only apply in a situation where the TD does find the determination difficult, that's what doubt is. You are creating a straw man.

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

As for what Sven said, if he did not mean what he said, fair enough, but I still think it is reasonable to assume he meant it: he said that if in doubt you assume partner has seen it if declarer has.  Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me.

Try barmar's posts if you want to continue since I give up. I guess you must think you are the only one among us who can read. To be clear, open your mind and consider that what you believe he said may either not be what he said or not mean exactly what you think it means.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Sven: The laws state that a card must be played if partner can see it.   You stated that you would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

Jdonn: I still consider the hesitation analogy exactly similar.  It is not as though one has any difficulty in this.  But what we were told is that if there is a difficulty, it is decided by one irrelevant fact.  You said we should use all the facts, but we were told that Norway is prepared to decide on one of the least relevant facts.

We were told that if in doubt, you use this approach: if that is not what he meant, why did he say it? I do not think it unreasonable that I am assuming he meant what he said.

No, I never say that I would rule a card must be played if declarer had seen it.

I said that if the Director cannot determine from other evidence whether partner could have seen the card then the deciding factor is whether or not declarer (or maybe dummy) had seen it so that he could name it.

And you were never told that Norway is prepared to decide on one of the least relevant facts, you were told that we are prepared to decide on the only remaining available fact that had some relevance when the director is unable to resolve the situation from better evidence.

I have certainly meant what I have said, but I have not said what you stubbornly continue insulting me by stating that I have said.

There is a major difference between absolute and conditional statements and I should expect you of all to know this difference (and observe all the conditions, not just one). Fortunately I notice that most other posters here seem to know.

Sven