[aguahombre]

Let us not forget the caveat in Lamford's signature line.

[mycroft]

ACBL digression: I think that if we had to implement the "substantially completed card" rule, and it turned out after the allowed "substantially" card was written, that something critical wasn't there, that it would still be MI if one relied on the "lack of checkbox", and it would still be a valid question of "what goes in the 'defence to NT box' that you have blank?"

Not sure, if it's something that isn't "required" on the card, that you're entitled to it before it could have happened. But the "in accordance with SO regs" part gets you what's clearly required to be filled in on the card, even if you haven't triggered that section yet.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-September-17, 10:07, said:

ACBL digression: I think that if we had to implement the "substantially completed card" rule, and it turned out after the allowed "substantially" card was written, that something critical wasn't there, that it would still be MI if one relied on the "lack of checkbox", and it would still be a valid question of "what goes in the 'defence to NT box' that you have blank?"

Not sure, if it's something that isn't "required" on the card, that you're entitled to it before it could have happened. But the "in accordance with SO regs" part gets you what's clearly required to be filled in on the card, even if you haven't triggered that section yet.

I think I know what you are trying to say, and it might really be applicable to the check boxes in "defensive carding". However, in "defense vs notrump", there are no checkboxes at all; the blanks to be filled in vs strong or weak NT are only about 2-level calls and the Double, with nothing pertaining to doubles of responses or Responses by the opening side after interference.

[barmar]

I wasn't really sure precisely what 40A1b means by "specifies the manner in which this is done". Does it refer to the contents of the disclosure, or the manner of providing it to the opponents? I thought it might actually be the latter, e.g. EBU says that pairs exchange system cards at the beginning of each round. ACBL doesn't regulate this at all, so it's not uncommon for players to hide their CC in their purse or under their bottoms.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL CC regulation does not seem to specify anything beyond that partnerships are required to have two identically and "substantially" completed cards, including the first and last names of both players. Neither what "substantially" means nor the specifics of how to fill out the card are in the regulation. The only place where how to fill out the card is explained is the "conventional wisdom" series which is being cyclically repeated in the Bulletin and which is also available on the ACBL web site. That series is not, however, an ACBL regulation or a set of ACBL regulations. It is, therefore, the author's, or perhaps the editor's, opinion.

All of that, of course, ignores the question of how to fill out parts of the card where your system substantially differs from the assumptions on the card - for example the "one of a minor" section, playing Precision or Polish Club, or the 1NT section, playing Romex (where 1NT is an artificial bid).

But I already said most of this, back in post # 18.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-17, 21:50, said:

The ACBL CC regulation does not seem to specify anything beyond that partnerships are required to have two identically and "substantially" completed cards, including the first and last names of both players. Neither what "substantially" means nor the specifics of how to fill out the card are in the regulation. The only place where how to fill out the card is explained is the "conventional wisdom" series which is being cyclically repeated in the Bulletin and which is also available on the ACBL web site. That series is not, however, an ACBL regulation or a set of ACBL regulations. It is, therefore, the author's, or perhaps the editor's, opinion.

And even if it were official, it wouldn't really answer the question. It explains what the different sections of the card mean, it doesn't say how much you're required to fill out.

I think the obvious minimum requirement for "substantially completed" is that if there's a specific field or checkbox for something you might have agreed on, you should fill it in. E.g. if you don't have "Puppet Stayman" checked, the opponents are entitled to assume that you aren't playing it, and if you haven't put anything into the "Defense to 1NT" section your overcalls are natural.

However, there's not much room for all the miscellaneous agreements you might have that aren't specifically labeled, and I don't think there's any concensus about what should be mentioned there. It seems to me that this is mostly the players' prerogative; if ACBL felt that you MUST disclose whether you're playing some specific convention (e.g. Unusual over Unusual) they should have labeled it. On the other hand, if they did this for all the potential conventions, they'd run out of space (unless, heaven forbid, they went to double-sided CCs like EBU).

Most of these miscellaneous conventions are alertable. I sincerely think that ACBL (and perhaps the lawmakers as well) never considered the issues raised in these threads about opponents needing to know these details before the alertable bids are made. How many players would decide whether to bid Michaels or Unusual 2NT based on whether the opponents have U/U available? The tactics suggested in these threads are really outliers. While it would be nice if we could craft the laws to cater to all needs, there are some practical limits.

Does that mean the laws are ridiculous? No, they're just not perfect. And sometimes good is good enough.

Every 2-3 months the Bridge World's editorial is about anomalous situations in the the Laws. They also mostly seem to affect rare situations, not day-to-day application of the laws.

[gnasher]

I know this isn't relevant to Lamford's point, but I think West's double of 6NT is a serious error that is unrelated to the putative infraction.

[mycroft]

That's why I used "defence to NT" as an example of "substantially, but not completely, filled in card" and "information opponents are entitled to before the auction, even if you don't have it marked". It's not checkbox (which you can't tell if it was missed or not applicable), but it's specific and there has to be *something* there, even if it's NAT.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-18, 12:43, said:

I know this isn't relevant to Lamford's point, but I think West's double of 6NT is a serious error that is unrelated to the putative infraction.

I know this isn't relevant to my point, but I think failure to double 6NT at point-a-board would be a serious error unrelated to the putative infraction. Let us say that the auction is the same at the other table (a huge assumption, I know). Double fails when North can bid 7x and partner leads the wrong suit. Or when South can transfer and partner leads the wrong suit. Even given both of those possibilities, the chances of 7x making, assuming they have 31-33 highs and may or may not have a long suit, is less than 2% with omniscient defence, perhaps 10% without it. Given that hands with a void will not normally open 2NT or respond 6NT, it is closer to 0%. The former is a 100-board simulation, the latter an estimate. And this was written before seeing the thread discussing this hand in another forum.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2013-September-19, 05:55

[rhm]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 17:13, said:

A very good summary, and I think that when the Laws contradict themselves, even if only in spirit, the principle of full disclosure should apply. One could get round this by obliging any player to answer any questions about their agreements at any time. Not about the bids not yet made, but about their agreements.

Is that not splitting hairs?
I do not know what the solution is. I am not sure the Laws contradict themselves. If they do they need to be corrected.
I understand that requesting advanced information about future possible calls is not practical.
But it clearly violates the principle of full disclosure and gives the side who has agreements but does not disclose them in time a clear advantage.

Where I disagree in the current case, is that anyone lied. We should not accuse anyone of lying on the basis of such flimsy evidence.
I also do not like such claims that South should have known that West could only have considered a DBL. Such inferences can get lost easily at the table.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

rhm, on 2013-September-19, 06:59, said:

I also do not like such claims that South should have known that West could only have considered a DBL. Such inferences can get lost easily at the table.

Have you ever encountered anyone calling anything other than Pass or Double at game all after 2NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-Pass? What did South think the subsidiary question was attempting to elicit?

[rhm]

lamford, on 2013-September-19, 07:05, said:

Have you ever encountered anyone calling anything other than Pass or Double at game all after 2NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-Pass? What did South think the subsidiary question was attempting to elicit?

I am well aware that the inference is valid, but I would not blame the responder to a question because he takes the question as it is posed without considering inferences, no matter how obvious they might look away from the table. To blame him goes too far in my opinion.
West did not ask "what are your run-out agreements over 6NT doubled", did he?
I know people do not ask that way, because they get liable for UI but this creates this type of problem, that your intention what you would like to know does not get clarified.
And if the inference is so strong as you claim the UI is present, whether you ask clearly or not. The inference that asker holds AK not two aces is strong either way.
Requesting complete information without direction is silly. Information is never complete.

Raiiner Herrmann