Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 47 48 49
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I too am talking about the real world. Accepting that some conclusions are ultimately erroneous doesn't mean juries do try their best to infer defendants' mental state.

I remain unconvinced that inference is the tool of choice for juries in making their findings about defendants' mental state. There are very many cases where juries make absurd conclusions. There are some where they make findings of guilt from very weak cases that cannot be based on inference.

I am not talking about some subset meaning that lawyers or even judges may attach to the word “inference”.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“”My opponent's reasoning is impeccable. Unfortunately his premises are false, so his conclusions are certain to be wrong."

You politician argued that since p was false that p implies q meant that q was necessarily false. That is not true.

But why should we be surprised since the politician recognised that his logic was flawed.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray a finding is not necessary an inference. Findings may be made on other bases than logical inference.

The finding maybe false. The finding maybe illogical based on the evidence. The finding may not be based on reason from the facts available to the jury.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David my point is that from a false premise a true conclusion can be deduced. The politician claimed that his opponents' false premises would necessarily lead to false conclusions. That statement is not true.

1=2 is such a false premise. From that premise one can logically deduce that 2=2 which is true (and a lot of other things that are false or rather maybe false or true).

When I say “1=2” I am referring to the assumption in the premise not the absolute truth of the statement.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If our premise is 1=2 (which is false).

Multiply both sides by 1. Do that on the left by multiplying by 2 and on the right by 1, we can do this since 1=2.

We have 1 x 2 = 2 x 1 so therefore 2=2 which is a true conclusion.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
False premises do not imply conclusions that are certainly wrong.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws say that the opponents should call the director if they do not agree.

Law 16B2 “When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).”
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would add to Michael's statement that even if the claim is not false or inaccurate a player who does not understand it has an absolute right to question it.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right of course. I overlooked the case where the premise is false.

You may or may not have an objection but my intention was that an inference is a valid deduction from the premise. If the conclusion is not a valid deduction then I do not accept that it has been reasoned.

And my point is that I do not believe that that is what juries do in many situations. Juries simply make a judgement that may or may not be based on any inference but then however the judgement is made it is passed off as an inference. However, juries may also make false conclusions from false premises which are valid inferences.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Inferring a person's mental state from circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is done by lay juries every day.”

Juries do not actually infer a person's mental state. To “infer” is to make a deduction about something that actually is true. Juries make a judgement about something that still might or might not be true after they make their judgement.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty sure the laws don't mention “stoning”.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What order are you playing them in?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
68A defines a claim.

Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or
when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

North clearly suggested play be curtailed therefore this is a claim.

East should not have played the 9. Playing on requires that all four players concur. There is no suggestion that anyone concurred before play continued. Declarer just took it on himself to play a card.

Given that the claim involved cards in his partner's hand there is reason to dispute the claim. The claim does need to be resolved as equitably as possible.

However I do not think that playing the ace is in itself conclusive. At the very least I think in the circumstances the director needs to ask why south played the ace.

I cannot see any basis in law for allowing play to continue and when all four players have not concurred. And therefore no basis to use the play that occurred as definitive.

There are issues whether south could discard badly on the run of the clubs. But there is evidence that might not have happened. The play of the dA is troublesome but in adjudicating a claim the laws require “normal” plays and this dA is not normal.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think if a player tanks for a long time and then plays from the wrong hand then they are definitely not being “particularly careful.”
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither did I.

Perhaps this is something that can only be self-policed. Only the player knows what they were thinking.

My only quibble with what you say is that there is a lawful obligation to try to play in tempo. When you do not play in tempo, even if you have something legitimate to think about, the laws say you need to be “particularly careful”. That is some sort of obligation.

As I read this, even if you have a legitimate reason to think you still need to be careful that you are not also inducing an unlawful advantage. The law does not seem to differentiate between reasons for the “variations” in tempo. If a variation “may work to benefit” your side then you have an obligation to be “particularly careful.”

I would go as far as to say that if a player was regularly varying tempo and gaining from reads of the opponent then there is a prima facie case that they are not being “particularly careful.”
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry I misrepresented the quote as from 73C it is from 73D.

73D1 says

“D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.”

If you vary your tempo to get a read then I submit this is precisely the sort of situation in which you may get a benefit and therefore is covered by this law.

For the removal of doubt it is not the only sort of situation that is covered by this law.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not?
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws require you to be especially careful when a variation in tempo can work to your advantage.

“However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.” from Law 73C (Edit sorry it is actually 73D).

Changing your tempo to gain an advantage is clearly wrong.
Sept. 17
Wayne Burrows edited this comment Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if he does lead a diamond to the ace or the queen you do not know whether

1. He worked this out after the claim was rejected or

2. He just made a lucky play or

3. He really knows what he is doing.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't actually play that way. I just don't like having ambiguity about the major. What I play for no particular reason is to resolve the ambiguity in favour or spades and bid with hearts and a minor some other way.

There is a problem with bidding 4oM as sometimes partner's five-card major will be opener's suit. Over a natural 2D I would play 4H as natural and NF. It is less clear over a multi. After a simple overcall in a major we play that the oM is a cue and hope that partner guessed well to bid their major. We have never had the situation come up after multi and 4m where we wanted to bid 4oM for any reason. I suspect it would be treated as a cue.
Sept. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 47 48 49
.

Bottom Home Top