[pran]

 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.

Have you overlooked:

Law 40 B 2(b) said:

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card between the commencement of the auction period and the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.

(My enhancement)
???

[blackshoe]

I suspect the proper procedure for using the card in explanation of partner's call is to just refer the opponents to the card. Then you will get "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions."

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 11:04, said:

I suspect the proper procedure for using the card in explanation of partner's call is to just refer the opponents to the card. Then you will get "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions."

And I believe I was told by some authority once (long time ago) that a player is entitled to say just that and request an answer (which then must satisfy the condition of being accurate and complete).

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2017-September-30, 13:29, said:

And I believe I was told by some authority once (long time ago) that a player is entitled to say just that and request an answer (which then must satisfy the condition of being accurate and complete).

A long time ago there was a different set of laws than we have now. I do not believe the current laws support the assertion that "it's on our card" or similar is not sufficient.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 14:39, said:

A long time ago there was a different set of laws than we have now. I do not believe the current laws support the assertion that "it's on our card" or similar is not sufficient.

Well, I very much doubt that any convention card in use can completely satisfy coverage of all the items specified in the enhanced (by me) part of:

Law 20F1 said:

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

Let us agree that a well compiled CC will probably satisfy at least 90% of request for explanations, but there can always be need for additional information not clear from the CC?

[blackshoe]

Well, I wouldn't assign a percentage to it. Rather, I'd say that it is proper for a player to refer an opponent to the system card, improper for that opponent to decline to look at the system card, and proper for the opponent, having looked at the system card, to ask for clarification of any points not fully satisfied by the card.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2017-September-29, 09:19, said:

if I had an ACBL CC I would just put my notes on the back.

You've forgotten that the back of an ACBL CC is the personal scoresheet.

[FrancesHinden]

Obviously the EBU conditions of contest don't apply in Switzerland, but interestingly they say

" If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it
will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own
misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2017-October-01, 14:39, said:

You've forgotten that the back of an ACBL CC is the personal scoresheet.

I have not forgotten. Obviously there is not nearly enough room. I would print one out or photocopy it. That is what I used to do, because I edited them. It was painstaking; at the time you could only use "paint" or the equivalent to remove names and boxes for methods you did not use. I assume it is different now; in any case there is some kind of way to edit even in a limited fashion, and printing one out seems more convenient than filling out a new card every time.

For a pickup or first-time partnershipit it is more of a problem. Perhaps clubs could start providing convention cards with just lines on the back.

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2017-October-02, 14:22, said:

Obviously the EBU conditions of contest don't apply in Switzerland, but interestingly they say
" If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it
will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own
misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

My intuition was that the onus is on the discloser to ensure that his explanation is understood.
But that EBU rule accords with Pran's opinion and contradicts mine.
The important lesson seems to be that players should start to comply with the rules and directors should start to enforce them.

[VixTD]

 FrancesHinden, on 2017-October-02, 14:22, said:

Obviously the EBU conditions of contest don't apply in Switzerland, but interestingly they say

" If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it
will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own
misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

They do? I can't find this in the current White Book, where the screen regulations are published. I searched the document for "non-written" and it came up with no matches.

[RMB1]

 VixTD, on 2017-October-04, 06:50, said:

They do? I can't find this in the current White Book, where the screen regulations are published. I searched the document for "non-written" and it came up with no matches.

There are further conditions of contest for trails, provided by the selection committee. The clause Frances quotes is in the general conditions of contest.

[VixTD]

 RMB1, on 2017-October-04, 08:46, said:

There are further conditions of contest for trails, provided by the selection committee. The clause Frances quotes is in the general conditions of contest.

If the conditions of contest that Frances cites applied to the Swiss case, that would make the ruling essentially correct, not "nonsense" as I said earlier. I apologise to the Swiss directors if that's the case.

[jallerton]

EBU screen regulation said:

If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

 VixTD, on 2017-October-04, 11:25, said:

If the conditions of contest that Frances cites applied to the Swiss case, that would make the ruling essentially correct, not "nonsense" as I said earlier. I apologise to the Swiss directors if that's the case.

Yes, no blame could be attached to the directors if they were following the regulations! However, "nonsense" is a suitable way to describe the regulation itself. The main infraction (failing to write down the explanation) was committed by East. This directly caused North's misunderstanding of the East/West system. The idea that a regulation should permit East to gain from committing an infraction of this nature goes against common sense, natural justice and the principles of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. To say that North is the player at fault for "accepting" a non-written explanation is completely missing the point. I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a question in writing and my screenmate has whispered an answer; when I hand them my pen, some take the hint, but others just repeat their answer verbally.

Let's check the Law to which the regulation refers:

Quote

LAW 21 - MISINFORMATION
A. Call or Play Based on Player’s Own Misunderstanding
No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

Surely the point of this Law is make clear that a player is not entitled to redress for cases where the explanation is perfectly clear (e.g. East explains that a bid shows both black suits, but North suffers a mental block and does not realise that spades in a black suit) or for a misunderstanding which is nothing to do with an explanation. In the present case, the explanation was not clear (East said one thing but North heard something different) and the explanation was not made in the way required by the regulations. Hence East was in breach of Law 20F.


Also relevant in the Law Book is:

Quote

Law 12B.Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

East was an offender. I would argue that North was an innocent party in respect of East's infraction as North does not control East's hand or mouth. Hence if North would/might have pulled the double on seeing an accurate written explanation, then E/W should receive an appropriate (probably weighted) adjusted score. By default, N/S would receive the opposite adjusted score. Under the 2007 Laws, it is plausible (though somewhat harsh) that the TD could have judged North's failure to insist on a written explanation to be "wild or gambling", thus deeming all of N/S's damage to have been self-inflicted and leaving them to keep their table score.

Under the 2017 Laws, this no longer seems to be applicable:

Quote

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:
(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self-inflicted.

Failure to insist on a written explanation is not "a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification". It is directly related to the infraction, so the "extremely serious error" clause does not apply either.

[MinorKid]

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.
Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.


Futhermore,
Penalty Double -> (subset) -> Lead Directing Double -> (subset) -> Call for a major lead, NS not use stayman -> (subset) -> West's Choice is Spades, view from his hand spades have nothing suggest East's Spade being Solid -> (Action) -> Lead Spades
Penalty Double include many types of hand. So we can't say East "penalty" was wrong. West have the right to change the lead of the suit upon a double.

Moreover, there no guarantee north w'd run given the precise explanation. South's 1NT opening is slightly flawed having no stopper in two suits.

But I think East's "Everyone play that way" was not a sufficient defense against concealed partnership agreement. Thus i may put 3NTX+3 into the mix (20%) into 3NTX-2 (80%). (Heart or Spade Lead) After the play, had East explained matters correctly there shall be no adjustments.

[Vampyr]

 MinorKid, on 2017-October-16, 01:15, said:

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.
Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.

If East's verbal explanation is quiet enough West may not received any UI, but it is not an infraction anyway to transmit UI.

[jallerton]

 MinorKid, on 2017-October-16, 01:15, said:

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.
Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.

Futhermore,
Penalty Double -> (subset) -> Lead Directing Double -> (subset) -> Call for a major lead, NS not use stayman -> (subset) -> West's Choice is Spades, view from his hand spades have nothing suggest East's Spade being Solid -> (Action) -> Lead Spades
Penalty Double include many types of hand. So we can't say East "penalty" was wrong. West have the right to change the lead of the suit upon a double.

Moreover, there no guarantee north w'd run given the precise explanation. South's 1NT opening is slightly flawed having no stopper in two suits.

But I think East's "Everyone play that way" was not a sufficient defense against concealed partnership agreement. Thus i may put 3NTX+3 into the mix (20%) into 3NTX-2 (80%). (Heart or Spade Lead) After the play, had East explained matters correctly there shall be no adjustments.

I agree that there's no guarantee that North would run on hearing of the lead directing double (hence the sensible suggestion from various posters to perform a poll). However, there is no legal basis for including any percentage of 3NTx+3. This is a (potential) misinformation case. If North passes out 3NTx then West (who has no UI) will still lead the same card and the defence will still cash the first six tricks (even if South has received an incorrect explanation it will not affect his play of the cards). If the poll suggests that North would pull to 4♣ some of the time then, apart from the percentage applied to the table result, all other possible assigned scores are based on North bidding 4♣ and what the TD judges would/might happen after that.

 Vampyr, on 2017-October-16, 04:37, said:

If East's verbal explanation is quiet enough West may not received any UI, but it is not an infraction anyway to transmit UI.

True, but in attempting to avoid transmitting UI, players tend to give verbal explanations quietly; but the fact that the explanations are so quiet increases the chance that they will be misunderstood. Hence the reason for the regulations requiring written explanations.

[MinorKid]

Is it legal for north to peek east's hand before his final pass?

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2017-October-16, 15:45, said:

True, but in attempting to avoid transmitting UI, players tend to give verbal explanations quietly; but the fact that the explanations are so quiet increases the chance that they will be misunderstood. Hence the reason for the regulations requiring written explanations.

If the explanation is written, no UI will be transmitted.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2017-October-16, 20:00, said:

If the explanation is written, no UI will be transmitted.

A suggestiom: read a post before quoting it.