[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-March-31, 08:40, said:

Particularly if it's not common to play systems on in the first place. Although I'm pretty sure East does play systems on with his main partner and he is the first to admit his memory is not what it was.

I think that an important part of the problem is that we are all too indulgent towards people who play 50 or even a 100 boards a week but can't find time to discuss agreements.

I think the crux of the matter is that the rules are not taught, followed and in many instances, not applied.
How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? We just do the best we can, and play in the better games.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-March-31, 09:09, said:

I think the crux of the matter is that the rules are not taught, followed and in many instances, not applied.
How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? We just do the best we can, and play in the better games.

I think it's an overbid to say they don't have a completed CC, they just omitted to detail developments in a field where they are not explicitly required.
If you go to most nearby clubs you won't see any cards at all, and then I agree with you more.

I'm 100% in agreement about teaching the rules, but unfortunately to do that effectively in a classroom setting requires recognition of the problem by the management committee, which I am still fighting to obtain in my club. In the meantime I do the best I can to teach while directing and by example when playing, but obviously there are multiple limits on how far that can or should go.

[mycroft]

How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? I've already cited the relevant Laws - 75 (especially D) and 84/85. It's actually the same as doing it *with* a completed CC, except instead of listening to the evidence and deciding what their actual agreement is, you look at the CC and then listen to the evidence and decide what their actual agreement is.

How many completed CCs are:

• 20 years old, and haven't been changed in all that time - whether or not the agreements have;
  
• written down 5 minutes before game time and either sketchy, incomplete, or illegible;
  
• for another partner, but "we agreed to play my card with J with Brozel instead of DONT" - and what's the chance partner glossed over this bit;
  
• made by me with my new cool toy, and partner didn't notice something I slipped in there because it was "obviously" what we played;
  
• made by the system wonk (not me?) and foisted on partner, who can remember about 3 of the 5 new things that they were told they were playing this week;
  
• mentoring and "we play it, it's on the card, but it hasn't come up yet...";

or all the other things?

How do you judge "I lost my mind" from "I play X with my other partners, and forgot" from "I had a spade in with my clubs" from "it might be on the card, but I've never played that in my life" from..., with or without a card?

In these cases, the card can protect the offenders by being evidence, frequently good evidence, supporting their statements about their agreements. But it's not ineffable and undisputable Word Of God. (Yes, primarily the card is to protect the opponents from a bunch of games, and for those opponents who learn by eye better than by ear, or "in context" better than individually. But it does protect your side as well.)

Having said all of that: since the mode (and likely median) number of times per session my card is looked at by the opponents is zero, even at a tournament - and I play K/S with Keri, South African Texas, Power Doubles, 0314, Namyats, UDSP and a few other oddities - how do you make this a priority?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-March-31, 11:13, said:

Having said all of that: since the mode (and likely median) number of times per session my card is looked at by the opponents is zero, even at a tournament - and I play K/S with Keri, South African Texas, Power Doubles, 0314, Namyats, UDSP and a few other oddities - how do you make this a priority?

Exactly.
And don't get me wrong on the rest, I am a firm believer in forcing partnerships to document their agreements.
I just don't beat my chest about a two page CC, which is at best a useful "half a cake is better than none" compromise and at worst a useless smoke screen.
I give a lot of importance to supplementary documents, in particular written partnership agreements and system notes.
The latter are vital in almost any serious problem about agreements: in this case for instance only system notes about transfers could reveal what if anything 3♦ over 2♦ is defined to mean, it's not something there is room for on a CC or indeed that should be on a CC IMO (otherwise you justify those who don't read or cannot find the necessary information in so much detail).
Have more to say, but a Tournament to play

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-March-30, 10:45, said:

I would also prepare the director for the "best part" of directing - somebody's going to think you can't direct, or maybe just can't play, or maybe are as gullible as a newborn babe, and will make that opinion very clear, even if not actually stated. Maybe when the ruling is given, maybe later. If you're not able to roll with it, this may not be the job for you. Ha Ha Only Serious: "Must have been the right ruling. All four players don't like it."

So, pescetom - how close did I get?

Very close: the ruling was MI, no damage, score stands, EW got a scolding to discuss and document what happens after interventions.

What I did think was a twist here compared to similar problems posted is that East genuinely has no meaning for the 3♦ call, either in the systems off or systems on flavours of agreement or in any other transfer development he can realistically expect West to follow (I suspect I am the only one in the club who has an agreement about it, currently a super-accept with 5-card support and a maximum). Whether pass is an LA at this point is an interesting question - I am a staunch believer in passing when the auction is off the rails, but I don't think such a meta-agreement is on the radar of East or most of his peers. I did consider polling both East's choices and whether any AI available could wake East up, but decided both were too confusing and smelled of witch-hunt. A lack of sympathy for the late call by South who wanted a better score but wasn't ready to point out the (very likely) UI from East did the rest.

As you suggest, it's not a call that where the TD can easily come out smelling of roses even to his colleagues, let alone to the players, and that's why I suggested wryly it would be an excellent starting point for the trainee TD

I think a huge step forward in such cases could come from audio-video recording each table - maybe South genuinely missed what West picked up, but now we could spot it too. Unfortunately that has yet to come over here due to draconian privacy laws and nobody in a hurry to face the problem.