[jallerton]

The screen regulations provide that all questions and explanations be communicated between screenmates and in writing.

Despite this, many (most?) players seem to give at least some of their explanations verbally.

I can recall a few occasions where the auction has ended, my side is about to declare the contract and I hear an incorrect explanation being given by my partner. Yes, I know the two players on the other side of the screen are at fault for asking and answering questions verbally, but what are my obligations?

Should I:

1. offer a correct of the explanation before the play start (as Law 20F5b seems to require) so that my opponent on the other side is not damaged during the play; or

2. not say anything on the basis that the screen regulations require my partner to give all explanations to her screenmate; or

3. not say anything at the time but offer a correction of the explanation at the end of the hand?

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-July-08, 15:13, said:

The screen regulations provide that all questions and explanations be communicated between screenmates and in writing.

Despite this, many (most?) players seem to give at least some of their explanations verbally.

I can recall a few occasions where the auction has ended, my side is about to declare the contract and I hear an incorrect explanation being given by my partner. Yes, I know the two players on the other side of the screen are at fault for asking and answering questions verbally, but what are my obligations?

Should I:

1. offer a correct of the explanation before the play start (as Law 20F5b seems to require) so that my opponent on the other side is not damaged during the play; or

2. not say anything on the basis that the screen regulations require my partner to give all explanations to her screenmate; or

3. not say anything at the time but offer a correction of the explanation at the end of the hand?

I think that where there is a conflict - such as condoning IBs - the screen regulations take priority, so I think it is 3. If you do 1, then you may gain by preventing MI, but I don't know the answer; perhaps those that wrote the screen regulations do.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2011-July-08, 15:42, said:

I think that where there is a conflict - such as condoning IBs - the screen regulations take priority, so I think it is 3. If you do 1, then you may gain by preventing MI, but I don't know the answer; perhaps those that wrote the screen regulations do.

I think it's 3 too. We don't allow players to get an explanation across the screen when one player has forgotten an agreement that s/he knows exists, so I'm sure we wouldn't allow a correction across the screen.

[barmar]

 jallerton, on 2011-July-08, 15:13, said:

The screen regulations provide that all questions and explanations be communicated between screenmates and in writing.

Despite this, many (most?) players seem to give at least some of their explanations verbally.

Really? In all the times I've operated Vugraph, I can't recall this ever happening. If they don't write their explanations, they use hand signals (e.g. pointing up or down to mean "strong" or "weak", showing 3 fingers for a support double).

After solving your ethical problem, you should remind partner of the proprieties when playing with screens so you don't end up with this dilemma.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-July-08, 15:42, said:

I think that where there is a conflict - such as condoning IBs - the screen regulations take priority, so I think it is 3. If you do 1, then you may gain by preventing MI, but I don't know the answer; perhaps those that wrote the screen regulations do.

 gordontd, on 2011-July-08, 15:53, said:

I think it's 3 too. We don't allow players to get an explanation across the screen when one player has forgotten an agreement that s/he knows exists, so I'm sure we wouldn't allow a correction across the screen.

Thanks for the replies. If you consider that Law 20F5 has been "trumped" by the screen regulations, why do you say 3 rather than 2?

 barmar, on 2011-July-09, 00:04, said:

Really? In all the times I've operated Vugraph, I can't recall this ever happening. If they don't write their explanations, they use hand signals (e.g. pointing up or down to mean "strong" or "weak", showing 3 fingers for a support double).

After solving your ethical problem, you should remind partner of the proprieties when playing with screens so you don't end up with this dilemma.

Yes, really. All too often when I ask a question in writing, my screenmate will whisper something in response. When I hand my pen to my screenmate, I will usually (but not always) get the explanation written down accompanied by a look of dismay. I can imagine what happens when two of such people are themselves screenmates.

Yes, I've had plenty of conversations with my partner about the screen regulations. However, when the auction has ended and our side is about to declare, I am less concerned about this technical breach of the regulations; many people consider that the main point of screens is to prevent the transmission of unauthorised information.

[gnasher]

When I had this problem in the EBU Premier League, the director (Mike Amos) wouldn't let me correct it until the end of the hand. That's consistent with Gordon's response, but to me it doesn't seem a very sensible approach.

We know that misinformation has occurred. If we correct the misinformation now, it may not be too late to prevent damage, and therefore obtain a result at the table. Everyone prefers to obtain a result at the table to having one assigned by the director.

What are the arguments in favour of not allowing a correction?

[gnasher]

In a week of pairs in Poznan I think I received about two written explanations.

[pran]

The Director should not accept as questions asked or explanations given other than such that can be documented from the paper on which they have been written.

No written documentation of a question: The question has not been asked.
No written documentation of an explanation: No such explanation has been given.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2011-July-09, 16:15, said:

The Director should not accept as questions asked or explanations given other than such that can be documented from the paper on which they have been written.

No written documentation of a question: The question has not been asked.
No written documentation of an explanation: No such explanation has been given.

And the players should not accept as a director someone who isn't willing to do his job properly.

If both sides agree as to what was said, why on earth would the director pretend that the conversation didn't take place?

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 16:49, said:

And the players should not accept as a director someone who isn't willing to do his job properly.

If both sides agree as to what was said, why on earth would the director pretend that the conversation didn't take place?

If there is full agreement that it has been said and exactly what has been said then the Director will rule accordingly, but also rule that there has been violation of procedures with UI being made available to the other side of the screen and failure to establish evidence of conversation.

[blackshoe]

Oral testimony is evidence.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 05:30, said:

Oral testimony is evidence.

If there is full agreement between the two players involved, yes. Otherwise this "evidence" should be dismissed as not established according to regulations.

[blackshoe]

I don't think so. The TD's decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence. The evidence of each of these players may effectively balance out, leaving no preponderance to consider, but that's not the same thing as dismissing it out of hand. And it may not balance, in which case there is a preponderance.

Your use of quotation marks leads me to believe you're saying that if they don't agree, there is no evidence. That, as Jerry Pournelle used to say, turns out not to be the case.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-July-09, 10:54, said:

Thanks for the replies. If you consider that Law 20F5 has been "trumped" by the screen regulations, why do you say 3 rather than 2?

I would feel uncomfortable if the opponents did not find out they had been misinformed until after the correction period, perhaps because they did not ask each other what had been said on each side of the screen; that is hardly the first topic of conversation while waiting to buy some food. I regard it as active ethics to tell them at the end of the hand. Equally, if I discovered by conversation later, rather than overhearing at the time, I would tell them (if I could find them) or tell the TD if I could not.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 11:54, said:

I don't think so. The TD's decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence. The evidence of each of these players may effectively balance out, leaving no preponderance to consider, but that's not the same thing as dismissing it out of hand. And it may not balance, in which case there is a preponderance.

Your use of quotation marks leads me to believe you're saying that if they don't agree, there is no evidence. That, as Jerry Pournelle used to say, turns out not to be the case.

In any case where this question is relevant there are two, possibly conflicting, interests: That of the player seeking information and that of the player giving information.

Misinformation exists if the given information is errouneous, incomplete or missing, and it is (solely) in the interest of the player giving information (in order to avoid any adjusted scoree because of damage from MI) that there is no MI.

Consequentrly, if there is disagreement between the two players on what information has actually been given then the best evidence is the written notes showing such information. This is one of the main reasons why screen regulations require that all such information shall be given in writing.

How do you prefer TD to rule if there is disagreement on what information was actually given?

I see absolutely no reason to rule in favour of a player who has violated screen regulations and therefore is unable to provide the written text showing the precise information he has given. Do you?

As far as I know we have standard procedure in Norway to request the written notes whenever a question of misinformation is raised or implied when screens are used, and I would be surprised if that does not apply everywhere screens are used?

[aguahombre]

The original question was: "Should I....".

To any but the most pedantic Secretary Birds, the answer at the point where declarer had heard the misinformation ---auction is over, and opening lead not yet faced --- would be that of course he (declarer) should disclose.

Who would object? The players now receiving the correct information so that they can defend accordingly?

[blackshoe]

Far as I'm aware, the ruling would be for or against a pair, not a particular player.

Where the facts are in dispute, the TD should rule IAW Law 85. And by the way, the opposing pair may have something to say about whether questions were asked and answers given. That too is evidence.

If the TD cannot determine, from the evidence he can gather, what the facts actually are, "he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue" (Law 85B). And in MI cases "the director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." IOW if the TD finds evidence that it was a misbid, he must consider that evidence, but if he does not find sufficient (i.e. a preponderance of) evidence that it was a misbid, he rules it was MI.

I suppose in the end we probably again arrive at the same ruling, but I don't want any neophyte directors or other readers to come away with the impression that the TD can just throw evidence out if he doesn't like it.

[Cascade]

 lamford, on 2011-July-10, 13:59, said:

I would feel uncomfortable if the opponents did not find out they had been misinformed until after the correction period, perhaps because they did not ask each other what had been said on each side of the screen; that is hardly the first topic of conversation while waiting to buy some food. I regard it as active ethics to tell them at the end of the hand. Equally, if I discovered by conversation later, rather than overhearing at the time, I would tell them (if I could find them) or tell the TD if I could not.

This happened to my partner and I at the recent APBF.

We played a session. Scored up. Went and had some dinner. And only then went through some of the hands.

When we got to the relevent board I said "your defense confused me on this board". She said "Why?". "Well you didn't continue trumps after I switched to one". "But he bid diamonds so I thought you were short too and potentially could overruff dummy and you were just making a safe exit with the trump". "He didn't bid diamonds - what was the auction?" " 1C 1S 1NT 2D ..." "Oh yeah 2D was alerted as NMF" "It wasn't on my side of the screen"

Probably it made one trick difference for us but we were outside the correction period. I discussed with our captain and chef de mission the next morning at breakfast and they both concurred it was outside the correction period so we took the matter no further.

[Cascade]

According to the screen regulations I believe it is improper to correct the explanation until the end of the hand.

WBF General conditions of contest 25.3c
"At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play
each player receives information only from his screenmate about the
meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period
should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the
response has been made."

[barmar]

 pran, on 2011-July-10, 16:20, said:

Consequentrly, if there is disagreement between the two players on what information has actually been given then the best evidence is the written notes showing such information. This is one of the main reasons why screen regulations require that all such information shall be given in writing.

I always thought the main reason was to prevent UI due to your partner hearing your explanation. That's why hand signals are just as good for simple explanations.

Use as evidence is a side benefit.