LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or
regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he
proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his
view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say
in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is
able to collect.
Much the same as NS saying South's bid was in tempo and EW saying there was a pause.
Listen to both sides - pay attention to what they say and don't say. Form an opinion as to the likely facts and rule on that basis. You do not need overwhelming evidence one way or the other - the preponderance of the evidence is what we need.
If the body language from South might have affected North's actions then we can look at North's hand (afterwards) and see if North's actions are evidence that he received unauthorised information. But this should not be our first choice in resolving conflicting evidence.
If I conducted a poll, without mentioning the (potential/presumed/denied) body language and 100% of my pooled folk bid on, can I use this in my decision to allow the actual result achieved at the table to stand?
@TawVale said:
If I conducted a poll, without mentioning the (potential/presumed/denied) body language and 100% of my pooled folk bid on, can I use this in my decision to allow the actual result achieved at the table to stand?
In this lucky situation where there is no logical alternative to bidding on, you don't need to determine whether or not there was any UI that suggested bidding on.
It would appear from your poll that there is no logical alternative to bidding on - so N hasn't obviously breached 16B or 73C. If there is a range of different bids made, however, then you would have to decide whether there is a LA to the actual bid made at the table, and if the 'body language' demonstrably suggested another.
@TawVale said:
If I conducted a poll, without mentioning the (potential/presumed/denied) body language and 100% of my pooled folk bid on, can I use this in my decision to allow the actual result achieved at the table to stand?
There are four things needed to adjust based on UI: unauthorised information, a logical alternative, a demonstrable suggestion from the UI that the action actually taken was better than the logical alternative, and damage. If any of those four things aren't met, you don't adjust.
Your poll here shows that no logical alternative exists, making the other three points irrelevant. (Likewise, if you decided there was no unauthorised information, you wouldn't adjust; or if nobody can demonstrate how the UI suggested the action taken over a logical alternative, you wouldn't adjust; and if the offenders ended up worse off from their own infraction, you'd obviously leave them suffering the consequences.)
@TawVale said:
If I conducted a poll, without mentioning the (potential/presumed/denied) body language and 100% of my pooled folk bid on, can I use this in my decision to allow the actual result achieved at the table to stand?
There are four things needed to adjust based on UI: unauthorised information, a logical alternative, a demonstrable suggestion from the UI that the action actually taken was better than the logical alternative, and damage. If any of those four things aren't met, you don't adjust.
And you can look at them in any order which appears convenient from the perspective of giving yourself an easy time making the decision. No point in agonising over whether there was UI if you can readily conclude that any UI there was didn't demonstrably suggest anything, or that there was clearly no LA.
Comments
LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or
regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he
proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his
view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say
in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is
able to collect.
Much the same as NS saying South's bid was in tempo and EW saying there was a pause.
Listen to both sides - pay attention to what they say and don't say. Form an opinion as to the likely facts and rule on that basis. You do not need overwhelming evidence one way or the other - the preponderance of the evidence is what we need.
If the body language from South might have affected North's actions then we can look at North's hand (afterwards) and see if North's actions are evidence that he received unauthorised information. But this should not be our first choice in resolving conflicting evidence.
If I conducted a poll, without mentioning the (potential/presumed/denied) body language and 100% of my pooled folk bid on, can I use this in my decision to allow the actual result achieved at the table to stand?
In this lucky situation where there is no logical alternative to bidding on, you don't need to determine whether or not there was any UI that suggested bidding on.
It would appear from your poll that there is no logical alternative to bidding on - so N hasn't obviously breached 16B or 73C. If there is a range of different bids made, however, then you would have to decide whether there is a LA to the actual bid made at the table, and if the 'body language' demonstrably suggested another.
Thanks all.
There are four things needed to adjust based on UI: unauthorised information, a logical alternative, a demonstrable suggestion from the UI that the action actually taken was better than the logical alternative, and damage. If any of those four things aren't met, you don't adjust.
Your poll here shows that no logical alternative exists, making the other three points irrelevant. (Likewise, if you decided there was no unauthorised information, you wouldn't adjust; or if nobody can demonstrate how the UI suggested the action taken over a logical alternative, you wouldn't adjust; and if the offenders ended up worse off from their own infraction, you'd obviously leave them suffering the consequences.)
And you can look at them in any order which appears convenient from the perspective of giving yourself an easy time making the decision. No point in agonising over whether there was UI if you can readily conclude that any UI there was didn't demonstrably suggest anything, or that there was clearly no LA.