Any rectification?

[dburn]

I think you are confusing two entirely different things.

 

First, there is the question of whether we should adjust in a case where the opponents are misinformed. Of course I am not suggesting that we should not nor that they should not complain.

 

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

I don't see how I can be confusing two different things when I was not talking about two different things. I said nothing about "the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets"; there is no such principle, nor would it have entered my head to talk about it even if it existed.

 

When an incident such as this occurs, one of two decisions may be taken: either the actual partnership "methods" have been correctly explained, or they have not. The convention card often is a good starting point, at least as regards opening bids, but in the case of rarely-used artificial opening bids it is no more than a starting point. Since the Laws enshrine the concept that partnership experience is part of the "methods" that must be disclosed, it is not enough for the putative offenders to say "we gave the right explanation according to our published methods". If there has been previous history of "forgets", clearly it is not enough to say "we really do play what's on the card", because they really don't. I would go so far as to say (because I have done it in the past) that players trying a new method for the first time should include that information on the card and in their explanations. Just tell the opponents what's happening - is that too much to ask?

[Vampyr]

If there has been previous history of "forgets", clearly it is not enough to say "we really do play what's on the card", because they really don't. I would go so far as to say (because I have done it in the past) that players trying a new method for the first time should include that information on the card and in their explanations. Just tell the opponents what's happening - is that too much to ask?

 

Well. It may be possible to obtain evidence of a first-time agreement, but how could one discover a pair's history of "forgets"?

 

Disclosure of this sort of thing is a good idea in theory, but it is impossible to enforce.