[Trinidad]

I decided to start a separate thread since I was confused about the following line.

 VixTD, on 2013-October-04, 11:35, said:

[NB system notes are not necessarily admissible evidence, but may be considered.]

Why wouldn't system notes be admissible as evidence?

Last weekend, I played against a pair, and an MI issue came up. The pair told the TD that they have the system notes with them. Declarer was sent away and the dummy could show the correct explanation from the system book. There was no doubt in my mind that this was (or should be) admissible evidence for their actual agreement.

If system notes aren't admissible evidence, what would be?

Rik

[RMB1]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-06, 01:02, said:

Why wouldn't system notes be admissible as evidence?

Last weekend, I played against a pair, and an MI issue came up. The pair told the TD that they have the system notes with them. Declarer was sent away and the dummy could show the correct explanation from the system book. There was no doubt in my mind that this was (or should be) admissible evidence for their actual agreement.

We have had a number of issues (real and imaginary) with accepting system notes as evidence unconditionally.

• We don't require registration of system notes so we don't know that there aren't many versions that say different things. (Or "corrected" pages, run off a printer in the hotel bedroom. )
  
• There have been cases where one place in the notes says one thing but this is contradicted somewhere else.
  
• System notes (like system cards) are often the work of one player and the other player has not learnt it all. In that case it is not clear the system notes represent the partnership agreements/understanding.

[Trinidad]

 RMB1, on 2013-October-06, 03:52, said:

We have had a number of issues (real and imaginary) with accepting system notes as evidence unconditionally.

I understand that system notes may not fully reflect the actual agreements that a pair has for -basically- two reasons:

1) They are an honest reflection of the (once) intended agreements, but -in practice- the agreements are somewhat different (one player writes - the other learns, evolution of implied agreements, etc.).

2) They were never intended to reflect the true agreements, they make up a fraudulous document for the intent to win TD cases (hotel printers, multiple versions, etc.).

If the actual, true agreement deviates for the first reason, then I would say that it is hard to get a more accurate and reliable description of the true system anywhere else (other than one of the players honestly admitting that the system has changed and the opponents were misinformed). In short, even if flawed, the system notes generally represent the strongest evidence one can realistically obtain.

As for the second reason: It is beyond any doubt true that there are frauds and cheats in the bridge world. The Laws of Bridge are not designed to deal with those. For the purpose of the Laws this possibility is simply ignored. (And when there is solid evidence for fraud and cheating the perpetrators are simply banned from bridge, so the Laws don't have to deal with them anymore.)

So, all in all, given that we ignore cheats, system notes are certainly not perfect proof of agreements, but -with rare exceptions- they form the best possible evidence.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I have to agree with Rik here. If we deem system notes inadmissible because they might be accidentally flawed, then we must throw out all evidence, because any of it might be flawed. To deem system notes inadmissible because their construction might be cheating is to assume a priori that the players are cheating. The Laws do not do that, nor should they.

It would not be wrong to implement a regulation that if players may wish their system notes to be considered in rulings, they have to register said notes with (by providing a printed or electronic copy to) the TO or DIC at the start of an event or tournament. That would alleviate at least some of Robin's concerns, I think.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 08:01, said:

If we deem system notes inadmissible because they might be accidentally flawed, then we must throw out all evidence, because any of it might be flawed. To deem system notes inadmissible because their construction might be cheating is to assume a priori that the players are cheating. The Laws do not do that, nor should they.

I don't think anyone has said that system notes are necessarily inadmissible - just that they aren't necessarily admissible.

Cheating is not the only source of concern cited above.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2013-October-06, 08:08, said:

I don't think anyone has said that system notes are necessarily inadmissible - just that they aren't necessarily admissible.

Vix was quoted as saying "not necessarily admissible", and Rik asked "if they're not admissible, what would be?" If they are sometimes admissible and sometimes not, what are the criteria?

 gordontd, on 2013-October-06, 08:08, said:

Cheating is not the only source of concern cited above.

No it's not. I did try to address the other concerns — flawed notes are not necessarily cheating.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-06, 08:32, said:

If they are sometimes admissible and sometimes not, what are the criteria?

There isn't a list: as usual we would make an assessment in consultation as to how much weight we would give them.

[Trinidad]

There are different tools one can use to measure length. I can use the odometer of my car, I can use a yardstick, a ruler or calipers.

If I want to measure how thick a dime is, calipers would be the best to do the job. Does that mean that I will know the thickness of the dime with absolute accuracy? No.

In a similar way, if I want to know what a pair's agreement is, I can ask the players, I can go around asking for people who know the pair's system, I can look at the convention card or I can look at the system book.

Unless the agreement is on the convention card and with rare other exceptions, the system book is, by far, the most accurate and reliable way to establish a pair's agreements. Does that mean that it comes with absolute accuracy or any other guarantees? No, but it is the best we have.

And I can't understand that a system book might "not necessarily be admissible as evidence" if it is the most reliable and accurate piece of evidence that one could get in more than 95% of these cases (where system notes are available).

Edit:
Of course, it is still possible to give little weight to the system notes in the balance of evidence:
- If it turns out that the players don't seem to agree on large parts of what is written in the system book, it is not refelcting their agreements.
- If the agreement is written in pencil in a printed document that was presented after the fact, one should be sceptical rather than naive.

But even when the system book is given little weight it is still admitted as evidence.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2013-October-06, 08:44, said:

There isn't a list: as usual we would make an assessment in consultation as to how much weight we would give them.

But that means they are admitted as evidence. They may be given little weight, but they are admissible... always (unless obtained by an illegal search ).

Rik

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2013-October-06, 08:44, said:

There isn't a list: as usual we would make an assessment in consultation as to how much weight we would give them.

I submit that if you don't have objective and definable criteria, you're doing it wrong.

[gordontd]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-06, 09:07, said:

But that means they are admitted as evidence. They may be given little weight, but they are admissible... always (unless obtained by an illegal search ).

Rik

It sounds as though you would prefer me to say that they are admitted but may be given zero weight.

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2013-October-06, 11:36, said:

It sounds as though you would prefer me to say that they are admitted but may be given zero weight.

Yep!

Rik

[barmar]

Isn't this similar to what we often say about self-serving statements made by the players? We should listen to them, but weigh them appropriately compared with other evidence.

IMO, system notes should get more credence than self-serving statements. Statements made in the heat of the moment are subject to psychological effects, such as cognitive dissonance and selective memory. System notes are usually crafted more carefully.

[nige1]

IMO, the rules should stipulate that system-notes be written as supplementary-sheets that players carry with them so that the director (and opponents) can consult them, in rare necessity, in real-time

Even if some players might need a cabin-trunk

[mycroft]

The other issue with system notes is not only are they one-sided and could be too new for real life, they also get stale.

I have "system notes" for my regular system. They aren't great, they aren't complete, and they're 8 months old.

They are *clearly wrong* in at least 8 cases, because we have agreed several things in the meantime, and changed our mind about two.

I, too, would prefer the rephrase of "system notes are admissible evidence, and it is the AC's sole judgement how much weight to attach to them." I would also note that new evidence, rather than evidence backing up what was said to the TD, should be made clear to have lower weight (as, if it had been an active part of the system, rather than just "there on page 33", one or the other player should have mentioned it).

[campboy]

VixTD said system notes are "not necessarily admissible evidence". If something is given zero weight then it may be admissible, but it is not evidence. (If it is, what is it evidence of?) So Vix's statement is consistent with Gordon's restatement.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure I agree, but now we're arguing semantics.

Not admissible evidence means "we won't allow it to be heard/used in the decision", at least in the standard court meaning of the phrase (it may not be allowed to be presented, or if it was presented and ruled inadmissible later, the jury will be instructed to ignore it).

Evidence given no weight is admitted evidence which has been judged by the AC to be of no use in making a decision.

"not allowed" vs "waste of time/paper", in other words. The difference between "we won't allow an AC on this ruling" and "the AC ruled the appeal had no merit".

[VixTD]

The actual wording in the White Book is:

Quote

[WB1.2] Some pairs have system files. It is open to TDs and Appeals Committees whether to accept evidence from such files.

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2013-October-07, 10:53, said:

They are *clearly wrong* in at least 8 cases, because we have agreed several things in the meantime, and changed our mind about two.

If both of you are in agreement about those cases, then I don't see the problem. System notes would normally be consulted in cases where there's some disagreement over the meaning of a call, i.e. resolving misbid versus misexplanation situations. If the two of you disagree ("we changed that", "no, we didn't"), I'd probably use the system notes to break the tie. The Law says what to do "in the absence of evidence to the contrary", but the system notes seem like usable evidence.

If that happens, you would be wise after the session to come to an agreement, and make sure the notes reflect it.

[mycroft]

But the issue is that if one of us forgets, and then argues (having been reminded) that partner is out of her mind, we never changed that, that must be another partner, and then it has to go to appeal, and he brings in the system notes - which are out of date, but support his version of the facts - the AC is still fighting the "no, actually they did agree to do it differently, and he knows it, and is just gaming the system in hopes the AC will be snowballed by data."

Note I stated that he "argues" - not he believes, or when being reminded, doesn't realize that yes, that was true. He knows it's true. He also knows there's a chance that he might get away with lying.

Obviously, I wouldn't do this, ever. But other people are not me, and the AC shouldn't be hamstrung in their opportunity to make decisions about what's happening in each AC case.