[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-03, 16:47, said:

I fail to see how you get that inference from what I said - particularly since it is not true of me.

Sorry I was just trying to make the obvious point that few people are simple liars or truth-tellers. Interpolating from the world at large, rationalisers and self-deluders are likely to be more common. If directors ask about players' intentions and believe some of the latter group, then truth-tellers are put at a disadvantage.

[blackshoe]

More common than what? Anyway, in my experience, both at the bridge table and otherwise, if you ask someone a simple question, you will usually get a truthful answer. From a director's viewpoint, this is a good thing, because unless you know the person very well, you may not be able to tell for sure that he's being completely truthful. Yes, sometimes that results in an unfair disadvantage to innocent opponents. Sorry, no system is perfect. OTOH, sooner or later, if a player makes a habit of stretching the truth, the TD will become aware of it and give him what he deserves.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-03, 23:14, said:

More common than what? Anyway, in my experience, both at the bridge table and otherwise, if you ask someone a simple question, you will usually get a truthful answer. From a director's viewpoint, this is a good thing, because unless you know the person very well, you may not be able to tell for sure that he's being completely truthful. Yes, sometimes that results in an unfair disadvantage to innocent opponents.

My contention is that, at the bridge-table, as in the world at large, rationalisers and self deluders are more common than simple liars and truth-tellers. For instance, players often tell you

• A mistake was a slip of the hand not the mind.
• They did not break tempo.
• They did not notice UI.
• UI did not influence their action.
• It is obvious from their claim statement that they intended to draw/not draw trumps (as appropriate).
• I'm sure you can supply dozens of other examples.

IMO: sometimes they are telling the truth. When not telling the truth, however, few are deliberately lying. They're simply deluding themselves.

blackshoe, on 2013-September-03, 23:14, said:

Sorry, no system is perfect. OTOH, sooner or later, if a player makes a habit of stretching the truth, the TD will become aware of it and give him what he deserves.

No system is perfect but many bridge laws could be simplified to rely less on mind-reading.

I'm intrigued by Blackshoe's last statement. What do plausible rationalisers get and what do they deserve?

[blackshoe]

• A mistake was a slip of the hand not the mind.
• They did not break tempo.
• four words: "preponderance of the evidence".
• They did not notice UI.
• UI did not influence their action.
• Irrelevant.
• It is obvious from their claim statement that they intended to draw/not draw trumps (as appropriate).
• No, it isn't.
• I'm sure you can supply dozens of other examples.
• And I can respond to them the same way I've responded to the above.

nige1, on 2013-September-04, 08:16, said:

I'm intrigued by Blackshoe's last statement. What do plausible rationalisers get and what do they deserve?

I was writing of liars, not your "plausible rationalisers".

[mycroft]

true plausible rationalizers get the hand as a "problem that came up yesterday" in the bar a couple of months later.

Most of what Nigel is talking about is "small pause, maybe 5 seconds" vs "30 seconds at least" around the table, and the answer is that TDs actually know about it, and take it into account. Yes, sometimes people get something they don't deserve. More often, they are quietly told that they're plausibly rationalizing, and get something they do deserve. Probably more often, too, they get something they don't deserve, the wrong way, because they weren't plausibly rationalizing. Definitely more often, they are told (whether it's true or not) "We believe you, but the law is written so that we have to rule the same way on 'honest as the day is long' and 'tryin' one on' so there's no argument about belief."

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-04, 09:13, said:

I was writing of liars, not your "plausible rationalisers".

Fair enough. IMO, the latter predominate.