[jillybean]

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

While there may indeed be a CoC saying they have to have two identical CCs, what's the actual damage you incurred from them only having one? If the other CC also had the NT defense crossed out you'd be no more the wiser. If it didn't, you'd complain that the cards are not identical.

No damage, ONE accurately, fully completed convention card would have been fine.

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

Meanwhile, you violated the law that says you have to obey the directions of the TD. He told you you could ask about their agreements, it's your place to object to this method. Did you really expect them to stop playing in the middle of the round and fill out a CC? That takes about the time it takes to play a board.

The director told me I CAN ask about their agreements, I chose not to. Which direction have I disobeyed? The CoC states that my opponents MUST have 2 identical convention cards. Who is the offender here?

I asked for their convention card to be corrected/completed which probably would have taken 30-60 seconds.

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

In some tournaments, the supposed rectification for not having proper CCs is that you're required to play a predefined system (e.g. SAYC). While this sounds reasonable on paper, in practice it's not likely to work out well. They probably don't actually know what SAYC really says, and you're not allowed to look at your own CC (and even if they were given an exemption from this, there are details that aren't on the CC). So they'll likely be playing different systems -- each will play what they think SAYC is.

I didn't mention this, but I assume you are pointing to a flawed law that could have been applied here but wasn't.

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

So I'm really not sure what you expected to accomplish by acting like a SB over this.

Did you read the last line of my post?

[sanst]

sfi, on 2018-September-10, 21:36, said:

Sorry, but this isn't even good sophistry.

I don’t agree. Why doesn’t it say in Law 74A that you should follow the TD’s instructions? That Law gives quite a few does, also some very obvious ones, and even more donts, so it wouldn’t be completely idiotic to say so. Also, it would be more logical to list the offences summed up in Law 90 in 74 and drop 90B. Now you can get the impression that the offences listed in Law 74 are not punishable.

[pran]

sanst, on 2018-September-11, 01:52, said:

I don’t agree. Why doesn’t it say in Law 74A that you should follow the TD’s instructions? That Law gives quite a few does, also some very obvious ones, and even more donts, so it wouldn’t be completely idiotic to say so. Also, it would be more logical to list the offences summed up in Law 90 in 74 and drop 90B. Now you can get the impression that the offences listed in Law 74 are not punishable.

Because Law 81 explicitly establishes the TD's authority and Law 90 (obviously) implies that his instructions are to be followed without discussion. Any objection is to be handled according to Law 92.

[sfi]

sanst, on 2018-September-11, 01:52, said:

I don’t agree. Why doesn’t it say in Law 74A that you should follow the TD’s instructions? That Law gives quite a few does, also some very obvious ones, and even more donts, so it wouldn’t be completely idiotic to say so. Also, it would be more logical to list the offences summed up in Law 90 in 74 and drop 90B. Now you can get the impression that the offences listed in Law 74 are not punishable.

I don't know, although I would hazard a guess that the lawmakers thought that following the director's instructions is a matter for neither conduct nor etiquette. But I'm also not going to try and claim that the laws are written as clearly as possible - that way lies madness, or at least silly lamford articles pointing out the curiosities.

However, I did a bit of research on how the law is written (if by research you count typing one query into a search engine). The first hit on "legal code murder" came back with this link, which purports to be the US legal code on murder. If you subscribe to the line of thought I am arguing against, murder would not be against the law. I submit this is a valid reducto ad absurdium argument which is directly relevant to the splinter thread in question.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2018-September-10, 23:13, said:

No damage, ONE accurately, fully completed convention card would have been fine.

Does the crossing-out on the one card make it not "fully completed"?

Quote

The director told me I CAN ask about their agreements, I chose not to. Which direction have I disobeyed? The CoC states that my opponents MUST have 2 identical convention cards. Who is the offender here?

Are you really making a big deal about the director's choice of verb, between "can" or "should"? People don't always choose their words so carefully.

Quote

I asked for their convention card to be corrected/completed which probably would have taken 30-60 seconds.

I thought you wanted two CCs.

Quote

Did you read the last line of my post?

Not sure how it applies, unless it supports someone's earlier contention that this thread is more of a rant about lax rule enforcement than a request for what the ruling should have been at the table.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2018-September-11, 09:00, said:

Does the crossing-out on the one card make it not "fully completed"?

NO! Was it crossed off because they are playing something else, or is it crossed off because they are now playing "natural"? If the latter it would take 2 seconds to write on the one CC.
Apparently it was not natural, 1nt (x) P (2♦) P (3♣) with a long club suit and not much else.

barmar, on 2018-September-11, 09:00, said:

Are you really making a big deal about the director's choice of verb, between "can" or "should"? People don't always choose their words so carefully.

Can/should, either way I do not want to ask and give opponents a chance to 'get on the same page'.

barmar, on 2018-September-11, 09:00, said:

I thought you wanted two CCs.

No, just one would be fine.

barmar, on 2018-September-11, 09:00, said:

Not sure how it applies, unless it supports someone's earlier contention that this thread is more of a rant about lax rule enforcement than a request for what the ruling should have been at the table.

It is a simple ruling.