[blml] Nondisclosure

[Mike Amos]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Nondisclosure


> On 30/05/07, richard willey <richard.willey at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Wayne:
>>
>> I think that Robert has already introduced the most important point:
>> This is a matter of interpreting local regulations rather than a
>> question of law.
>>
>> I tried to skim the local regulations in New Zealand, but didn't make
>> much headway.  Most of the examples seemed to deal with opening bids
>> rather than overcalls.  I did, however, find this little gem under the
>> section entitled "Alerting"
>>
>> If you are playing a complex system (permitted only in "A" point Pairs
>> or Teams events) then a system card highlighting and advising the
>> opponents that the system is unusual is (and always has been)
>> compulsory and a verbal emphasis of this fact at the start of the
>> round or match is also required.
>>
>> Most of the the examples of non-complex systems appear to "Green"
>> systems like Acol or Standard American.  I believe that the normal
>> conditions of contest would require an explict pre-alert of these
>> methods.  In addition, while I am not familiar with the NZCBA
>> convention card, I understand that a WBF card is considered to be an
>> acceptable substitute.  This type of overcall absolutely needs to be
>> disclosed on a WBF type card.
>>
>> Here's my take on the "appropriate" way to handle this situation.  I
>> can't swear that this is necessarily legal, but it smells right
>>
>> 1.  Cancel this board and award an adjusted score
>> 2.  Require the offending side to switch over to a simple system for
>> the remainder of the session
>> 3.  At such a time that the offending side is able to appropriately
>> document their agreements, they will be permitted to start playing
>> their original methods
>>
>
> I think this is a matter of law.  The regulations may allow or not a
> particular method but that is not the issue that I have here.  The
> problem is that players are supposed to disclose their methods (L40B).
> This prior disclosure especially in a trial or important long match
> allows their opponent's to prepare an appropriate defense.  Turning up
> at the table and finding out the opponents play a convention not
> previously disclosed is IMO a violation of L40B.  So the problem is
> how do deal with the problem.
>
> On the actual hand what happened was probably not ideal.  The first
> board was actually completed without any problem and the director was
> called at the end of the hand to establish whether this method would
> be allowed (not based on system regulations but on lack of prior
> disclosure - there was some regulation saying that a pair may not
> change their system from simplex to complex but it was not clear if
> this applied) and much more importantly from my perspective to allow
> my partner and I an opportunity to discuss a counter measure to this
> unusual defensive system.
>
> The opponents were allowed to play the method and we were denied any
> time to prepare a defense.
>
> Wayne Burrows
>
>> On 5/29/07, Wayne Burrows <wjburrows at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 20 Board Match - National Trial
>> > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance.  There was an
>> > opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play
>> > began in the first match.  This is match three on the evening of the
>> > first day.
>> >
>> > Board One
>> >
>> > 1C (1S*) ?
>> >
>> > * Either diamonds or both majors
>> >
>> > This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor
>> > any verbal mention made of this defense.
>> >
>> > Do you ...
>> >
>> > 1.  Allow this method
>> >
>> > 2.  Disallow this method?
>> >
>> > Assume you allow the method ...
>> >
>> > Do you ...
>> >
>> > 1.  Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense
>> >
>> > 2.  Allow no time for the opponents to prepare
>> >
>> > 3.  Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is
>> > considered playing time
>> >
>> > 4.  As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side
>> > that did not disclose
>> >
>> > 5. Something else that I have not thought of.
>> >
>> > Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable
>> > to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to
>> > prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that
>> > is part of your circumstances).
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Wayne

I personally don't think I would have allowed such a system to be used.
I often direct trials in England .
Fortunately the National Authority takes care to provide appropriate 
regulation.
The guiding principle for triaals is that the Conditions (with a Large C and 
a small c) should be the same or as nearly as possible the same as for the 
event that the trial is held for. If it is a trial for the Olympiad which is 
played over 16 board sets with screens and WBF system policy then these 
conditions and Conditions should apply.
So the simple sentence,  "WBF Systems Policy will apply." should have been 
part of the Cs of C.
I understand that this was not the case.  A sight of the Regulations for the 
event would help.

This method is "Brown Sticker"  according to WBF regulation and in order to 
be played requires a written defence to be supplied to opponents.
The regulations did seem to require advance notification of system so 
clearly it was the regulation writers' intention to demand disclosure.  No 
one can deny that this is "complex", and I would expect international 
trialists to understand their obligations.  English regulations sometimes 
demand 14 days notice.  I notice that the Gold Cup regulations allow 7 days
So I would rule that this was "more complex" than the system disclosed and I 
would not allow it.  If later stages of the trials were some way off I would 
consider allowing it provided that written defences and some notice was 
given.  I could ask the sponsoring organisation for guidance - 48 or even 24 
hours might be appropriate in some circumstances.

I would invite the pair concerned to appeal.  It really pisses me off when 
I'm the CTD for an event and the Regulations are useless.  If a suitable 
Appeals Committee ruled that the system was allowed I'd accept their advice 
but suggest that a new CTD was found (in the next ten minutes :))

Mike Amos