[shintaro]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-15, 10:08, said:

In the EBU, incomplete or improperly filled out convention cards are dealt with pretty severely. Pairs without complete or identical CCs can be made to play "Simple Systems" until they have complied with the requirement. I was once fined .5 VP for having one of my footnotes misnumbered (however, penalties like this are not consistently applied, and they should be).

As for UI and MI, a reader of this forum will think that they are generated all the time, but let us not forget that cases end up here because they are noteworthy. Delays are inevitable when there is a director call, but in my experience a table that has had the director there normally catches up by the next round.

Once when I was in the US, I played against an extremely fat man who was sitting with his legs apart. His convention card was under him on his chair, sticking out at his crotch. I do not remember whether the pair had another convention card, but there was certainly no way I was ever going to look at that man's card. Another time I played against a woman who kept snatching her card back from me whenever I picked it up. In Europe, it is very common for players, even in serious competitions, to have no convention card at all. However, in England, people are pretty good about exchanging convention cards, or placing them within the opponents' easy reach, at the beginning of a round. It sounds as if better regulations and/or better enforcement in other parts of the world is badly needed.

mmm stephanie have you met the dreaded zeezee yet (name changed) but TD's know whom I am on about

[mycroft]

Vampyr: re: folded card. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well that way. Recapping what Blackshoe said:

• SC in plastic folder (like this);
  
• collection of SCs for players' various partners (I'd say the average is 10 or so; I have 6, but I have 3 holders for different purposes)
  
• score cards in the back (which people only clean out when it gets uncomfortable to carry - by the end of a regional, there'll be 15 *if* they cleaned out at the beginning)

It just doesn't fold cleanly - even if you get the ones with a reinforced fold in the middle. I'd say there will be at least half that are 1.5cm thick after being folded. If you put the bidding box on top of it, it will slide off. If you put it next to the bidding box, it takes as much space as my "unfolded" one does. So, no real gain.

Also, we don't have a "important notes" box like the EBU (and most of the the rest of the world) does, so that most things can be checked with a glance. So, frequently one has to flip the card over (from whichever side they put it down) to see what you needed to see (which puts out the same, or *very similar* UI, as asking questions, at least to partner).

As far as carrying two cards goes (having the CC open by itself, and the plastic holder for the score), that would be nice, wouldn't it? It doesn't work that way (from our tradition of "one-side" CCs - everybody else with their "two-sided" ones finds that the obvious way); were I a fold-my-holder person, I'd do that, now that it's pointed out.

But, of course, you've played here, you know this.

Axman: again, that works if we're in a "pass CC to opponents" world. But remember, the personal score is on the back of the CC. We "can't" (barring Vampyr's "two things" solution) pass the card out of our sight, in case the opponents are "casually checking" the part of the card they're not entitled to.

Further to David's comment to Nigel: Announcements of *all* NT ranges (not just the non-15-18 ones) have been policy in the ACBL for 10 years. Guess how often people playing 15-17 need to be prompted to Announce, in 2011? Announcements of red-to-major transfers have been policy for 20 years. Guess how many players ask us questions about our 1NT(10-12)-2H(No Announcement), because of the chance that we just "forgot" to Announce (I hate it, but I don't blame them, by the way. What do you think that says?)

And David's "regulations to annoy bridge players" feeling is right. I frequently get "we shouldn't have to Announce 15-17, everybody plays it". After I explain that it's *for their benefit* (two cases: variable NT, one Announceable, one not (in pre-2001 rules) - so, did they "forget", did they "assume you knew from last time" or did they follow the policy correctly and this one isn't Announceable?; and WeaSeL vs NT from "I needed to know whether it was 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18" questions), they *still* grumble that they shouldn't have to. I should (but I won't) start playing WeaSeL vs unAnnounced NTs explicitly.

[axman]

axman, on 2011-March-13, 20:35, said:

Most sanctioned bridge demands, with severe penalties if the player fails to satisfy the rule, to bid using 2 bidding systems- one of which is quite alien to him. As such, the condition exists that players already are doing what you complain about. And just what is the standard system to which I refer? The Alert Procedure.

For quite some time I have had the inkling that there is a nearly universal mood that prefers UI accusations, MI accusations, ethical accusations, and the foul rulings that arise therefrom- not pronouncing judgment on the state of affairs, mind you, but observing the state of affairs. And from my observations I have given effort to understand the underlying mechanisms and constructed alternatives. It is quite clear that you desire things as they are and that your fervor will lead others to close their minds from constructive alternatives.

What I had set forth above was the appropriate use of a SS. Albeit, it is the only feasible and equitable solution [read remedy] for the pair that causes ‘too much’ UI and or MI and or improper delay of contest due to ‘biting off more than they can chew fairly’.

It thereby follows that CC are exchanged at the beginning of the round with a heads-up covering curious sequences.

It follows that a player’s scores should not be given to the opponents since they might notice them. Err, I mean that they be kept on a separate paper.

It follows that the design of the CC ought to be some sort of amalgam of the Zone 2 style overview and the EBU A20 style details with a standardized organization of footnotes. It is unthinkable that this can be accomplished with less than both sides of an 8.5x14 paper.

It follows that the declaring side at the conclusion of the auction should demonstrate that they don’t know their system as by recounting their agreements to their bidding. If nothing else their future bidding will show improvement. And, oh yes, it would seem that MI if any would get corrected so as to not disadvantage the defenders. Nah, opponents that improve are a bad thing.