[VixTD]

nige1, on 2017-September-25, 12:18, said:

Seemingly N-S didn't realise the full extent of the damage they suffered.
But should that constrain the director from restoring equity?

You're right that the director should restore equity if the non-offenders cannot see how they've been damaged. This applies particularly to less experienced players, but those competing in a national competition played with screens are normally expected to be able to look after themselves in such situations. How do you think they're reaching a slam?

nige1, on 2017-September-25, 12:18, said:

In particular, Including the 3NX-2 table-result in the mix seems to be a travesty of justice.

If you think it's obvious to remove 3NTX with the North hand when you've been told it's asking for a spade lead, then you're right. I'm rarely a peer of people playing in competitions with screens, so I'd have to carry out a poll. Note that North didn't rescue the contract when he just thought it was "penalties".

nige1, on 2017-September-25, 12:18, said:

North should write his request for an explanation. Failure might attract a procedural penalty.
But East's multiple infractions caused the problem.
Arguably, however, it might accord with the spirit of Bridge-Law to punish the victim and reward the law-breaker

This is your usual nonsense. EW are in the wrong and are having their favourable score taken from them (at least in part). They're also receiving a procedural penalty for failing to observe the regulations. NS are getting the score adjusted in their favour, but they also didn't follow the regulations, and so they receive the same penalty as EW. How is this punishing the victims and rewarding law-breakers?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2017-September-26, 06:35, said:

If North's question had been made in writing, as the regulations require, it's more likely that East would have given an answer in writing. (I assuming WBF screen regulations, which may not apply in Switzerland.)

Precisely !

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2017-September-24, 18:11, said:

I would give some weighted score as I don't think it's evident that North would bid 5♣. 4♣ is also possible.

If North bids 4♣ then South will have an obvious raise to 5♣, or he should get a PP for breach of 7B2 for not inspecting the faces of the cards.

[lamford]

.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2017-September-26, 06:48, said:

This is your usual nonsense. EW are in the wrong and are having their favourable score taken from them (at least in part). They're also receiving a procedural penalty for failing to observe the regulations. NS are getting the score adjusted in their favour, but they also didn't follow the regulations, and so they receive the same penalty as EW. How is this punishing the victims and rewarding law-breakers?

VixTD would take away most of E-W's favourable score. Good.

In practice, however, the director ruled score stands. Pran confirms that this ruling accords with the law. Nonsense or not.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-September-25, 13:03, said:

In all my years of operating Vugraph I've never seen anyone do this, unless they were asking something more specific than just a general explanation of a call ... But I get the feeling that they would likely do it simply by pointing to the call in question, and that would prompt the player to explain. If they were to write it down, it would probably be something simple like "X?", as shorthand for "What does the double mean?"

Yes, this is how questions are usually asked in my experience. In any case the explainers are obligated to make sure their explanation is understood.

I find it curious that the explainer doesn't recall what she said. That, to me, is evidence that she is not telling the truth.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-26, 09:57, said:

I find it curious that the explainer doesn't recall what she said. That, to me, is evidence that she is not telling the truth.

The explainer remembers what she said, she just doesn't remember whether she said it in English or French. I'm not bilingual, but I wouldn't be surprised that if you're going back and forth between languages you might not remember which mode you were in at a particular moment.

Of course, being in a situation where language could be an issue is another reason to give answers in writing. Players usually use the suit symbols, and they're universal (on the other hand, the initials used for honors vary: Queen and King are D and R in a number of languages).

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2017-September-26, 08:25, said:

VixTD would take away most of E-W's favourable score. Good.

In practice, however, the director ruled score stands. Pran confirms that this ruling accords with the law. Nonsense or not.

I'm prepared to believe that North would always bid 4 or 5♣, and that South would raise 4♣ to five, if told so by players of the calibre of you and Lamford. It's reaching six any of the time that I was struggling with.

And I agree with you, the actual ruling given was nonsense.

[nige1]

Another common-sense simplification:

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

With screens, IMO, the law should mandate a similar arrangement. To ask about opponent's call, you point to it. To ask about the whole auction, you could touch the bidding board.

Even better would be an electronic matrix (on a tablet, for example) to record disclosure (matrix and written). This would reduce language difficulties and resolve controversies like this case.

[barmar]

Doesn't that set of "common explanations" suffer from a problem similar to using convention names as explanations instead of describing the meaning with words?

[nige1]

barmar, on 2017-September-27, 08:48, said:

Doesn't that set of "common explanations" suffer from a problem similar to using convention names as explanations instead of describing the meaning with words?

Yes.

For (inter) national competition, official WBF abbreviations (like these) might reduce language difficulties.

For club play, however, more straight-forward explanations could be more appropriate.

In case of any difficulty with the matrix, you would fall back on written explanation.

[awm]

nige1, on 2017-September-26, 16:02, said:

Another common-sense simplification:

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

I don't think this helps. The basic issues are around:

1. We want to have some record of what explanation was given. Without screens this is handled by having THREE people listening to the explanation instead of just one. But if it's just pointing to a card, the other two players can't really see it. And you still don't have a written record.
2. We want to make sure explanation is understood. But first, people can choose to ignore your matrix just as they currently choose to ignore the pencil and paper behind screens. And second, this might actually encourage less informative explanations (like just pointing to FG instead of distinguishing NAT-FG and ART-FG).
3. It's one more thing to keep track of at the table (along with the bid boxes, boards, convention cards, score sheets... not to mention in some cases drinks and puppies). Something is going to get lost or knocked on the floor!

[nige1]

awm, on 2017-September-27, 12:50, said:

I don't think this helps. The basic issues are around:

1. We want to have some record of what explanation was given. Without screens this is handled by having THREE people listening to the explanation instead of just one. But if it's just pointing to a card, the other two players can't really see it. And you still don't have a written record.
2. We want to make sure explanation is understood. But first, people can choose to ignore your matrix just as they currently choose to ignore the pencil and paper behind screens. And second, this might actually encourage less informative explanations (like just pointing to FG instead of distinguishing NAT-FG and ART-FG).
3. It's one more thing to keep track of at the table (along with the bid boxes, boards, convention cards, score sheets... not to mention in some cases drinks and puppies). Something is going to get lost or knocked on the floor!

• Without screens, all the players can see the matrix-card. You could place pennies instead of pointing. A matrix on a tablet could provide an electronic record.
• Of course players can use other legal methods instead of -- or as well as -- the matrix-card. The matrix-card is meant to help disclosure. A player should point to all relevant boxes e.g. ART + FG + whatever.
• Admittedly a matrix-card is another thing to clutter up the table (until tablets are used instead of bidding-boxes, bridgemates, etc).

awm's criticisms are valid but I still believe advantages swamp drawbacks.

[helene_t]

What about answering queries by circling the relevant words in your CC?

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-September-26, 16:02, said:

Another common-sense simplification:

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

With screens, IMO, the law should mandate a similar arrangement. To ask about opponent's call, you point to it. To ask about the whole auction, you could touch the bidding board.

Even better would be an electronic matrix (on a tablet, for example) to record disclosure (matrix and written). This would reduce language difficulties and resolve controversies like this case.

This matrix idea works; in fact I carry one to all competitions. I call it a "convention card".

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2017-September-28, 17:18, said:

What about answering queries by circling the relevant words in your CC?

Vampyr, on 2017-September-29, 02:17, said:

This matrix idea works; in fact I carry one to all competitions. I call it a "convention card".

An excellent suggestion but the law might need a slight to change to allow you to consult your own system-card.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2017-September-29, 06:25, said:

An excellent suggestion but the law might need a slight to change to allow you to consult your own system-card.

The law says you can't use it as a memory aid, it doesn't say you can't use it to explain bids to opponents.

But how detailed are the descriptions on the CC? If it's just lots of checkboxes like an ACBL CC, that's not much more helpful than giving the names of conventions.

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-September-29, 08:21, said:

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

On the ACBL CC you have about half a square inch at the bottom of the "doubles" section - but nobody puts it in there.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-September-29, 08:56, said:

On the ACBL CC you have about half a square inch at the bottom of the "doubles" section - but nobody puts it in there.

On most of my CCs that's already filled with other doubles that don't have checkboxes, such as Snapdragon.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-September-29, 08:21, said:

The law says you can't use it as a memory aid, it doesn't say you can't use it to explain bids to opponents.

But how detailed are the descriptions on the CC? If it's just lots of checkboxes like an ACBL CC, that's not much more helpful than giving the names of conventions.

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

if I had an ACBL CC I would just put my notes on the back. If I used another type of CC and it didn't adequate space for special doubles (the EBU card does) I would put the information in the space designated for notes.