Poker

Sometimes, in the course of an exchange of opinions in the courtroom, we realize that there was a mistake in our reasoning that we had not seen before. Sometimes we are finally aware of this, but we cannot immediately assess what consequences it might have for us to admit or withdraw from this error. Then there is embarrassment (confusion) in our attitude. What to do with such embarrassment? Rather, we should not say something that is just an external sign and confirmation of our confusion. You can’t react to your own embarrassment like Benedict Korczynski, who said, “This one, this one, this one.”

Some possible way of gaining time is to ask our own question in response to a question we have asked, from which it follows that we do not understand what we do not understand. In the worst case scenario, it could be a question that a relative of mine asked. Asked, for example, “What time is it?” he answered his own question: “Who?” But he did because he couldn’t hear. This, too, could be a strategy: pretend to be hearing impaired for a while. I am of the opinion that the courtroom in economic matters is not a poker table. More important than a poker face is a truth-based ration, and you can never lose sight of it.