[robert2734]

Why?

[blackshoe]

Because an assertion that "some law was violated" without specifying which law has no validity.

[Mbodell]

ggwhiz, on 2016-March-22, 06:40, said:

I don't think how you play it is the issue but what E/W were told certainly is.

How *I* play it doesn't matter. How many people play it, or what could be meant by "garbage stayman" with no other discussion *is* potentially relevant to assessing the explanations given. Especially when the hand in question matches a very common treatment different than what's been explained.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2016-March-22, 22:29, said:

How *I* play it doesn't matter. How many people play it, or what could be meant by "garbage stayman" with no other discussion *is* potentially relevant to assessing the explanations given. Especially when the hand in question matches a very common treatment different than what's been explained.

Perhaps. However, where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face. The ACBL's alert regulation so states.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 09:30, said:

Perhaps. However, where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face. The ACBL's alert regulation so states.

It wasn't explained just by giving the name of the convention. The OP said 'told that it was "garbage" (or weak) with spades and hearts.'

The name of the convention was used on the convention card (well, the one that was filled in more completely). You can't really expect much more on a CC.

BTW, I wonder if the pair was given a PP for not having two identical convention cards. This regulation is often ignored, but when it impacts determining the facts of a case like this, they should throw the book at them.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-March-23, 09:58, said:

You can't really expect much more on a CC.

Which is, of course, a flaw in the design of the card.

barmar, on 2016-March-23, 09:58, said:

BTW, I wonder if the pair was given a PP for not having two identical convention cards. This regulation is often ignored, but when it impacts determining the facts of a case like this, they should throw the book at them.

Agreed.

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 09:30, said:

Perhaps. However, where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face. The ACBL's alert regulation so states.

Yes, but in the context of this case it is possible that the morning discussion of the pair was just "garbage stayman". As others note, their explanation was more complete (but possibly not more correct).

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 09:30, said:

where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face

I don't think that's true. An explanation which the recipient knows to be inadequate doesn't necessarily misinform him. The only thing we can say is that it doesn't sufficiently inform him.

[robert2734]

The name of the convention may or may not be a full and complete explanation of the partnership methods. But the opponents can ask again for a clearer explanation. For example, I don't play cappeletti but opponents often think the one word explanation "cappeletti" is explanatory. Then I have to ask , "well what does two diamonds show?"

[blackshoe]

The point is that you shouldn't have to ask. Full disclosure should be automatic.

[pigpenz]

and this was in the Platinum Pairs?
Seems like at this level this shouldn't be a problem.
Unless North/South have a track record of doing this before.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-March-21, 03:30, said:

The way I read it in the bulletin, one of the CCs was filled in pretty completely, while the other was scantily filled in. So it's not so much that they're conflicting, but rather that one of them was more dilligent in filling in his CC when they were discussing their agreements. A conflict would be if the two CCs had different meanings for a sequence, rather than one completely omitting the meaning completely.

This detail seems to have been omitted in lamford's brief summary of the appeal, so you can be forgiven for not realizing it.

An empty convention card also conflicts with one that is filled in, in my opinion. 40B4 states: A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. The RA has specified that two identical CCs are completed. When there is a failure to do so and it causes damage, there should be an adjusted score.

[WellSpyder]

I don't see what difference it would have made if both CCs had said "garbage Stayman", other than perhaps to avoid discussions being side-tracked from the core issue. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that the pair agreed to play "garbage Stayman", but that one member of the partnership thought that allowed for hands such as the one he held to bid 2C, and the other one didn't. If that is the case, then is clear that the explanation given did not match the partnership agreement, and that is all there is to it. Whether or not there was damage from the MI may still need to be discussed, but that does not seem to have been the cause of disagreements about this ruling.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2016-March-18, 18:30, said:

The write-up continues, regarding the ruling, that "Law 75 states that the director must rule that the explanation was mistaken". This is incorrect; the Law that states this is 21B1b which is:
"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

It's incorrect of course, but the reference itself is ok. The phrase you quote does appear in Law 75 as well as in Law 21. No-one is claiming there was a "Mistaken Call", though, so I don't think it is particularly relevant.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 10:17, said:

Which is, of course, a flaw in the design of the card.

I know that our CC design is not as good as others, but I'm not actually familiar with the others. How many pages is an EBU or WBF CC? Does it really have room to put details about the style of every convention that's listed on it? It seems to me that even a 2-page CC would not have room for a complete explanation of what "garbage Stayman" entails -- this is something that would have to be relegated to detailed system notes, not the summary that goes on the card.

[barmar]

pigpenz, on 2016-March-23, 18:37, said:

Unless North/South have a track record of doing this before.

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure this partnership has much of a track record at all.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-March-24, 18:23, said:

I know that our CC design is not as good as others, but I'm not actually familiar with the others. How many pages is an EBU or WBF CC? Does it really have room to put details about the style of every convention that's listed on it? It seems to me that even a 2-page CC would not have room for a complete explanation of what "garbage Stayman" entails -- this is something that would have to be relegated to detailed system notes, not the summary that goes on the card.

A WBF system card is both sides of a standard (8 1/2 by 11 or A4) sheet of paper, designed to be folded in thirds, so the front is roughly the same size as the front of a folded ACBL card. An EBU 20B system card is iirc a standard A4 sheet, folded in half horizontally, giving a four page roughly 5 by 8 inch booklet. The pre-printed cards I remember were printed on card stock, not regular paper, making them a little sturdier, but I don't know if they're still doing that. The EBU 20B can be viewed at their web site. There's an example completed WBF card (for Bridge World Standard 2001) on the WBF site.

Note that both the EBU and the WBF suggest (require?) "supplemental information" on a separate sheet(s) from the system card, keyed to the card. There used to be a booklet on how to fill out the WBF card on their web site, but I can't find it there now.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2016-March-20, 19:16, said:

IMO, it would be simpler and fairer if your system-card were considered to represent your agreements, for law purposes. It might also encourage more players to use convention-cards.

This wouldn't work in the case under discussion, where the cards were different, nor in any case where only the name of a convention is used.

Anyway it is perhaps not simpler, but certainly fairer, to try to determine a pair's actual agreements rather than using possibly inaccurate information on a card.

barmar, on 2016-March-24, 18:23, said:

I know that our CC design is not as good as others, but I'm not actually familiar with the others. How many pages is an EBU or WBF CC? Does it really have room to put details about the style of every convention that's listed on it? It seems to me that even a 2-page CC would not have room for a complete explanation of what "garbage Stayman" entails -- this is something that would have to be relegated to detailed system notes, not the summary that goes on the card.

blackshoe, on 2016-March-24, 21:02, said:

A WBF system card is both sides of a standard (8 1/2 by 11 or A4) sheet of paper, designed to be folded in thirds, so the front is roughly the same size as the front of a folded ACBL card. An EBU 20B system card is iirc a standard A4 sheet, folded in half horizontally, giving a four page roughly 5 by 8 inch booklet. The pre-printed cards I remember were printed on card stock, not regular paper, making them a little sturdier, but I don't know if they're still doing that. The EBU 20B can be viewed at their web site. There's an example completed WBF card (for Bridge World Standard 2001) on the WBF site.

Note that both the EBU and the WBF suggest (require?) "supplemental information" on a separate sheet(s) from the system card, keyed to the card. There used to be a booklet on how to fill out the WBF card on their web site, but I can't find it there now.

The EBU card has a lot of room for footnotes. You can make more room, too, if you edit the card on a computer -- eg if you have the same requirements and responses to your major-suit openings, you can combine the boxes and have the information printed only once.

The WBF card is a bit more relegated -- ie there is no room to put extra notes. However, there is probably a Word file of that card, too... although if your agreements are very detailed you might, in fact, need a sheet with your notes. I have never needed one.

The ACBL card could be considerably improved, without getting too far from what people are used to. For example, the entire back side could be used for notes instead of having a scorecard printed there. Also, the checkboxes should be eliminated; no one needs a lot of space devoted to things they are not playing.

EDIT: the EBU card for editing is just a Word file, and has no footnote checker (maybe it does, but it would probably not work because the notes are not organised like academic footnotes are). So you must be careful when adding footnotes in between -- I once got a 0.5VP fine for having a note misnumbered by 1.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-25, 00:31, said:

Anyway it is perhaps not simpler, but certainly fairer, to try to determine a pair's actual agreements rather than using possibly inaccurate information on a card.

The card is one of the pieces of evidence the TD can use to try to determine the pair's actual agreements. If both cards say the same thing, that's usually considered pretty conclusive, as contradictory statements by the players would be considered biased and self-serving. If one is filled in and the other is blank in that area, I would probably give strong consideration to the first. Only if they have directly contradictory information on the two cards would I then discount them completely and ask for other evidence.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-March-25, 09:15, said:

The card is one of the pieces of evidence the TD can use to try to determine the pair's actual agreements. If both cards say the same thing, that's usually considered pretty conclusive, as contradictory statements by the players would be considered biased and self-serving. If one is filled in and the other is blank in that area, I would probably give strong consideration to the first. Only if they have directly contradictory information on the two cards would I then discount them completely and ask for other evidence.

They key word is agreement. If one card is empty, and the other is not ..