Complex discard system

[blackshoe]

Hand over their notes? It's highly unlikely they had system notes at the table, and they may not have had them at all.

 

The principle of full disclosure holds that when a question is asked, all relevant information is given, whether specifically requested or not. Players can't hide behind "he only asked about the 2" here, since the prior play of the five is certainly relevant.

[barryallen]

Hand over their notes? It's highly unlikely they had system notes at the table, and they may not have had them at all.

 

The principle of full disclosure holds that when a question is asked, all relevant information is given, whether specifically requested or not. Players can't hide behind "he only asked about the 2" here, since the prior play of the five is certainly relevant.

Then how does the TD proceed, when the defender asked, claims he cannot remember the play of the S5? Just answer that one simple question!

 

As far as I am concerned, if there is nothing written which the declarer can refer to when asked, they are fried!

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between concealing something relevant, and not remembering that it happened. As to "they're fried", the law is

The director rules any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. if in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

But before he gets to that point, he needs to determine the relevant facts.

 

This pair have a complex carding system. If they can't remember it, they're going to do poorly on defense. OTOH, if they do remember it, they have an obligation to fully explain it, or the relevant parts of it, when asked. On balance, I think the TD should start from the premise they haven't forgotten it, collect whatever evidence he can, and decide on the basis of that evidence whether the premise is likely to be valid. If there's no written system notes, then the TD has to rely on what other evidence — system cards, verbal statements — he can collect. Lack of such written evidence is not cause, of itself, to rule against them.

 

If a defender, when asked, says he can't remember what card his partner played earlier, the TD will treat it as a doubtful point in the context of Law 85D. Simple question, simple answer. ;)