[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-05, 18:46, said:

I would incline to fine East-West enough IMPs to lose the match for wasting police time.

Under which Law?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2011-May-06, 07:13, said:

Not so. The evidence is equally consistent with the CPU that a slow jump to the five-level is quantitative and a fast jump to the five-level asks for a control in the opponent's (or fourth) suit. Whether through previous experience or by illegal agreement. I am sure this is not the case here, but with some players it might be.

Turning devil's advocate, you can take Paul's argument further: Suppose the likely default meainng of 5♠ really is a general invitation but you want partner to bid slam, only when he holds "the nuts". Especially when there are spectators, with a legal-expert as partner, a slow 5♠ is the most effective way to ensure this, .

BTW, I don't think it's right for a director to assess the credibility of a player's statement on the basis of his relationship with the player.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:54, said:

BTW, I don't think it's right for a director assess the credibility of a player's statement on the basis of his relationship with the player.

How about on the basis of his understanding of the integrity of the player?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 11:54, said:

BTW, I don't think it's right for a director to assess the credibility of a player's statement on the basis of his relationship with the player.

blackshoe, on 2011-May-07, 12:09, said:

How about on the basis of his understanding of the integrity of the player?

Directors are human beings. They tend to rate the integrity of a friend higher than than they rate the integrity of an enemy. Occasionally, in appeal-discussions, a commentator reveals that he is a friend of a protagonist. His assessment of that player's integrity is predictable..

[blackshoe]

So you would have directors recuse themselves when they are friendly with players involved? How about when they are unfriendly with them?

I think you're making unreasonable assumptions about the integrity of directors if you assume they will allow their knowledge of the players, or some of them, involved to bias their judgement. I also think you're making an unreasonable demand on the system if you expect directors, particularly in clubs, to recuse themselves simply because they know (some of) the players involved in a case.

[AlexJonson]

I'm inclined to think it unlikely that NS are colluding in one of (presumably many?) CPUs.

It's as if Lamford took off for the moon (wondering if the flight was a fraudulent simulation),
and now we are headed for Mars (with Lamford's concerns unanswered).

But back on Earth, NS are innocent so far, and I don't know them.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-07, 14:49, said:

So you would have directors recuse themselves when they are friendly with players involved? How about when they are unfriendly with them? I think you're making unreasonable assumptions about the integrity of directors if you assume they will allow their knowledge of the players, or some of them, involved to bias their judgement. I also think you're making an unreasonable demand on the system if you expect directors, particularly in clubs, to recuse themselves simply because they know (some of) the players involved in a case.

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.

[barmar]

Club games and small tourneys usually only have one director, so can they realistically recuse themselves?

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2011-May-07, 13:20, said:

Directors are human beings. They tend to rate the integrity of a friend higher than than they rate the integrity of an enemy.

That is quite possible (especially as good TDs tend not to remain friends with people who's bridge integrity is questionable; especially as it can be damaging to *their* integrity when the relationship is public knowledge). However, that is somewhat irrelevant to any TD's ruling; for instance, I have warned my regular partners and my "close friends" that they're likely not to get a judgement ruling in their favour from me or when playing with me; you know, unless it's Immediately Obvious to the Most Casual Observer. I can't imagine I'm not the only one. It's the "must carefully avoid" thing again.

Cue my story of walking back to the DIC and saying "so, at that table [that I just got called to rule on something] was my regular partner, his other regular partner, and our teammates from the sectional last week. Where's my bias on this one?"

[gnasher]

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?


PS: Mycroft, if I should ever meet you, would you mind making it clear who you are *before* I risk any social contact with you?