[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2014-November-18, 09:01, said:

Rik, the quotation you give ["An intentionally false statement"] seens to me to support exactly the opposite position to the one you are arguing.

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

When someone asks you how you are doing, do you than answer "fine, thank you" even if you are doing horrible? Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to follow a social convention.

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.
You: "Thank you!"
-"Do you like it?"
You: "Oh yes!"
Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

Other famous example: Two colleagues had together authored a patent filed by their company. The patent was challenged in court by a competitor. In court, the judge asks one of the inventors how he came up with the idea. The answer: "Well, I had this problem and it was really bothering me. So, in bed my wife asked me what my problem was. I sketched the problem for my wife and I told her that I couldn't find the solution. Then my wife suggested that I should look at it from the other side because then it would be much easier to understand. And she was right." End of Patent.
Was it a lie to put these two authors as the inventors on the patent? Yes. Was there any intent to deceive? Certainly not. (The inventor and his wife would together have made more money if they would have included the wife.) They probably never thought of putting the wife on the patent, since she was not a professional in the field.

I think that you can come up with more examples of lies, without intent to deceive.

Rik

[GreenMan]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 12:46, said:

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

This is the sort of lawyering that makes the game intolerable when it happens. "Sure, I deliberately gave you false information, but it doesn't say in this dictionary here that I was trying to deceive you." That's BS and you know it.

Quote

When someone asks you how you are doing, do you than answer "fine, thank you" even if you are doing horrible? Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to follow a social convention.

So you're saying that providing false information about one's bridge agreements is following a social convention? That's BS and you know it. If you're not saying that, why bring it up?

Quote

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.
You: "Thank you!"
-"Do you like it?"
You: "Oh yes!"
Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

Through deception.

Quote

Other famous example: Two colleagues had together authored a patent filed by their company. The patent was challenged in court by a competitor. In court, the judge asks one of the inventors how he came up with the idea. The answer: "Well, I had this problem and it was really bothering me. So, in bed my wife asked me what my problem was. I sketched the problem for my wife and I told her that I couldn't find the solution. Then my wife suggested that I should look at it from the other side because then it would be much easier to understand. And she was right." End of Patent.

Citation please? Or is this a "just so story" that lawyers pull out to con non-lawyers in arguments? And again, what's the relevance?

Anyone who would seriously argue that "deliberately providing false information" does not imply intent to deceive need not be taken seriously. There's honesty and there's trying to win debating points, and I think we can see which is going on here.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 12:46, said:

Christmas eve: You get an awful sweater.
You: "Thank you!"
-"Do you like it?"
You: "Oh yes!"
Is that a lie? Yes. Is the intent to deceive? No. The intent is to spare somebody's feelings.

Of course there is intent to deceive. You want to deceive them into thinking you like it. You have a reason for trying to deceive them, but that is the case with almost any lie; it's not particularly relevant what that reason is.

FWIW the (British) dictionary I have to hand is Collins, which says

Quote

vb.
1. (intr.) to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive.
2. (intr.) to convey a false impression or practice deception: the camera does not lie.
~n.
3. an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead.
4. something that is deliberately intended to deceive.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-November-16, 14:03, said:

With the possible exception of undiscussed calls that should be announced, would Lamford advocate any changes to disclosure rules?

Not really. Law 40 seems detailed enough, provided players make an effort to be as helpful about their agreements as possible.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 11:39, said:

Even when there's no explicit agreement about his call, the bidder hoped that his partner could deduce its likely meaning from general principles, common experience, analogy with similar auctions, and negative inferences from other agreements -- i.e. he believes that they have, at least, an implicit agreement.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-14, 17:53, said:

What you describe is not an implicit agreement (which would indeed need to be disclosed). It is general bridge knowledge (this doesn't need to be disclosed).

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 18:30, said:

OK this is where we disagree. IMO, General Bridge Knowledge is a myth invented by prevaricators. Whenever a director has managed to extract the information as to what opponents agree to be relevant "General Bridge Knowledge", it has almost always come as a surprise to me.

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 21:51, said:

In my (seemingly atypical) experience, shared understandings vary from time to time, from country to country, from club to club, and even from clique to clique. Hence I'm unsure what bidding understandings are matters generally known to bridge-players. I accept that others have a different perception

Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 04:56, said:

I think that there is something else going on here. The world is still very separated. In one country it is GBK that sequence XYZ shows A, whereas in another country it is GBK that it shows B. The "General" in General Bridge Knowledge is not as general as people think.

A simple example: For years, people in the Netherlands were taught Acol by the nationally famous method by Cees Sint and Ton Schipperheyn. For all these people it is "General" Bridge Knowledge that four card suits are opened up the line. If a gentleman or lady who learned to play in the bridge club on Acol Road would walk into these Dutch bridge clubs, they would initially be pleased to see everybody play Acol but end up totally confused.

Who is at fault? Nobody really, except that it would be good to realize that what is general "here" is not general "everywhere". But that is not a bridge question. That is a cultural question. It belongs in the school system.

A glimmer of light at the end of a long tunnel?

[Trinidad]

All right. Let's just say that lying means "to make an intentionally false statement with the intent to deceive". This is obviously not what I meant to say (as I mentioned in post #52). So, please read "to make an intentionally false statement" wherever I wrote "lying".

Then the original question remains: Should we change the laws in such a way that players are forced to make intentionally false statements? I think that would be a bad idea.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-18, 12:46, said:

Which of these four words says that there has to be an intent to deceive? It says that the statement is false, and it says it is intentionally false (i.e. not a mistake). It does not say -in any way- with what intent the intentionally false statement is made.

It seems so self-evident that I find it hard to explain further.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-19, 01:58, said:

Then the original question remains: Should we change the laws in such a way that players are forced to make intentionally false statements? I think that would be a bad idea.

Agree - that's a stupid idea. It isn't what I suggested. I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

[RMB1]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-17, 18:32, said:

...
You can see the problem(s).

I think we see the problems. I don't see any solutions.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-November-19, 08:31, said:

I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

In effect, you're suggesting requiring a player to tell everyone at the table, including his partner, how he's decided to interpret that partner's bid. Thus the player is forced to give massive UI to partner, who is now constrained (unless he has no LA) to drive the auction off the road and into the weeds. I don't know what this is, but it's not bridge.

[barmar]

GreenMan, on 2014-November-18, 13:01, said:

Through deception.

Not necessarily. Often the other person knows full well that you're telling a white lie.

Imagine you've just been on a bad first date, and you're saying goodnight. Most likely, both of you know it didn't go well. But you'll end with pleasantries, saying you had a nice time, but thinking about how you're glad it's over.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2014-November-19, 10:56, said:

Not necessarily. Often the other person knows full well that you're telling a white lie.

And often not.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-19, 10:37, said:

In effect, you're suggesting requiring a player to tell everyone at the table, including his partner, how he's decided to interpret that partner's bid. Thus the player is forced to give massive UI to partner, who is now constrained (unless he has no LA) to drive the auction off the road and into the weeds. I don't know what this is, but it's not bridge.

I upvoted Blackshoe's post by mistake As Lambert and Vampyr have pointed out, opponents who claim "no agreement" make it hard for their opponents. As the law currently stands,unfortunately, that is Bridge. (Bridge is its rules)

IMO, if forced to guess, most would guess right. All explanations give UI to partner. The suggestion would give AI to opponents on which they could base their auction.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-November-19, 08:31, said:

Agree - that's a stupid idea. It isn't what I suggested. I suggested that the law be changed so that you had to make your best guess.

But intentionally presenting a best guess as the truth is... I don't dare to say it.

And telling your opponents that it is only your best guess is silly. That is non-information. How can your opponents build on that? So, then we will rule MI anyway, though the original explanation ("no agreement") was 100% correct.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Somebody who, forced to guess, gets it wrong, will blame the law. If it happens enough (I would say probably twice) those folks will quit the game. Not a desirable outcome, IMO.

[GreenMan]

People are generally not very good at distinguishing between the basis for their inferences and the inferences themselves. I wouldn't say "It's probably Spiral Scan showing the ♥K" because that's drawing a conclusion, but "Most people at my partner's usual club would play that as Spiral Scan showing the ♥K and he knows I know that" gives the relevant information without stating an inference as fact.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-19, 12:06, said:

But intentionally presenting a best guess as the truth is... I don't dare to say it.

Coyness is better than insolence If the new law mandated that you must make your best guess, then, when you made your best guess, you would be making your best guess. You would simply be presenting your best guess as your best guess.

Trinidad, on 2014-November-19, 12:06, said:

And telling your opponents that it is only your best guess is silly. That is non-information.

• Under current law when you're unsure, you have explain other relevant agreements (about which you might be equally unsure). And other relevant memories, however vague. IMO, that is tantamount to admitting you are unsure. And I agree it's silly.
• Under the new law, you wouldn't tell opponents that you were making your best guess. Opponents would be entitled to assume that you were obeying the new law. If you did tell them it was a pure guess then it would certainly be information And It would be unauthorised information to your partner

Trinidad, on 2014-November-19, 12:06, said:

How can your opponents build on that? So, then we will rule MI anyway, though the original explanation ("no agreement") was 100% correct.

Most of your agreements should be on your system-card. (This rule assumes that standard cards are available for any partnership to use). Even if (like me) you're never certain of your agreements, you might be fairly sure of some of them. For other agreements, you have vague inferences-- including what Trinidad calls GBK -- and clues mentioned in several previous posts. You would often guess right - or at least better than your opponents would have guessed. So, most of the time. your guess would be useful to them. But if it's wrong then, yes, it would be MI. And I concede that is a major downside of this suggestion.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-19, 12:14, said:

Somebody who, forced to guess, gets it wrong, will blame the law. If it happens enough (I would say probably twice) those folks will quit the game. Not a desirable outcome, IMO.

The new law would encourage players to complete system-cards or to use standard system-cards. You would be OK if opponents could find your agreement on your card. What Blackshoe fears is quite possible, however, and it's another drawback.

[barmar]

The editorial in the December 2014 Bridge World that arrived a couple of days ago seems somewhat related to this. It's in response to the suggestion that when members of a partnership disagree on what their agreement is (or whether they even have one), the intent of the player who took the action in question should be taken. BW then gives a half dozen reasons why this would be a poor policy.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-November-20, 10:02, said:

The editorial in the December 2014 Bridge World that arrived a couple of days ago seems somewhat related to this. It's in response to the suggestion that when members of a partnership disagree on what their agreement is (or whether they even have one), the intent of the player who took the action in question should be taken. BW then gives a half dozen reasons why this would be a poor policy.

And how many reasons why it would be a good policy? (or are they biased?)