[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-05, 04:01, said:

The regulation should simply clarify that the CC's are for the opponents. It should say: "At the start of the round a CC is handed to each of the opponents. These CC's must be filled out completely and must be identical."

If we did have such a regulation, I agree that it would be perfectly appropriate for it to include the "two CCs" clause. But we don't have such a regulation, nor even a tradition of doing so, which is what makes the "two CCs" clause seem inappropriate. It should be a strong suggestion, as a courtesty to opponents, but penalizing a pair because they only have one CC seems extreme.

[olegru]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-02, 12:29, said:

My partnership received a 1/4 of a board penalty in the first qualifying session of my district's NAOP for having only 1 completed convention card on the table. This was the result of a silly director call by the opps after he couldn't figure out that I had led the 8 as the top of three small cards against a NT contract and tried to get a better result after the play by calling the TD. The TD gave the opp nothing, but penalized us for not having 2 completed identical CCs on the table.
Very silly.

We once receive the 1/6 of a board penalty during the NY Regional for not having 2 identical completed convention card even with 2 of them on the table. One was printed out earlier, second was hand filled right before game started. To speed it up, I used +,◊,↓ and ↑ instead of C, D, H and S. Director ruled our CC are not identical. I don't remember exact detail of director’s call, but as far as I remember, low level pro, playing with client against us, got 0 because of his bad decision and was trying to save the board by calling director. Director did not give anything to him, but slightly punished us.
It was my first Regional ACBL tournament after I moved to US. At that time I was very impressed to see how strongly CC policy enforced in ACBL land. How naïve I was…

[Bbradley62]

In my last NABC (not anytime recently) I played in a regionally-rated stratified pairs game against one of the pairs (not a random two of the six members) of the newly-crowned Bermuda Bowl champions. It was the second round (obviously, I didn't have the same seeding as them ) and neither one of them had a convention card filled out. If the "must play SAYC" rule had been in effect back then, it might have been interesting to call the director and see if he was willing to enforce that rule...

[blackshoe]

Before the reg said "must play SAYC" it said "must play only Class A conventions". I don't remember exactly when, but less than a year ago I brought the ACBL webmaster's attention to that, and it was changed shortly thereafter. I have no idea when "Class A conventions" went away, but it was quite a few years ago, I'm pretty sure.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2012-December-04, 13:23, said:

If that were the intent of the regulation, shouldn't it also say that the CCs have to be put on the table, and on opposite corners so that each opponent can look at them without having to ask for it? What sense does it make to penalize having only one CC, but not penalize butt-CCs?

And even if both CCs are on the table, players often fold them in half so they don't take up so much room. As a result, you still have to ask for it if the information is on the side that isn't face up (in my experience, the defensive carding section is almost always face down, and it's what I most often need to peek at).

I didn't say it *worked*, just that that is the reason. ACBL regulations that are all of: clearly explained, sensible, enforced, and followed? What country do you come from?

And yes, that frustration isn't aimed at you. Things seem to run on "it works for us [experts playing other experts, or experts playing with clients against everybody], it works for the LOMasses, it works in most cases for the other few, therefore it's not a problem."

[debrose]

jillybean, on 2012-December-02, 11:03, said:

While reading the daily Bulletin from the SF NABC, you can't help but notice this prominent reminder.


Convention card reminder
Each player is required to have a
convention card filled out legibly and on the
table throughout a session. Both cards of a
partnership must be identical and include
the first and last names of each member of
the partnership.
If a director determines that neither
player has a substantially completed card,
the partnership may play only the Standard
American Yellow Card and may use only
standard carding. This restriction may be
lifted only at the beginning of a subsequent
round after convention cards have been
properly prepared and approved by the
director. Further, the partnership will
receive a 1/6-board matchpoint penalty
for each board played, commencing with
the next round and continuing until the
restriction is lifted. In IMP team games,
penalties shall be at the discretion of the
director.
If the director determines the
partnership has at least one substantially
completed convention card but has not
fully complied with ACBL regulations, the
director may give warnings or assign such
penalties as he deems to be appropriate
under the circumstances.
The objective of these warnings and
penalties is the encouragement of full
compliance with ACBL regulations.


My question, is this regulation only enforced at NABC's, in the National rated events?
What is the point of having the regulation for other games? Club games, Sectionals, Regionals.

In my experience, this regulation is not enforced at all in Nationally rated events. It sounds from the experience of others like it is at least sometimes enforced in lesser events.
I refer to the above announcement as the "Daily Waste of Ink"

[Bbradley62]

One of them was actually trying to fill out a convention card, and asking the other a lot of questions in the process. The other clearly didn't want to be bothered. They appeared to be irritated with each other, which I decided was a better state of affairs than opening my mouth and having them be irritated with me. 23 out of 24 matchpoints...

[barmar]

debrose, on 2012-December-05, 14:33, said:

In my experience, this regulation is not enforced at all in Nationally rated events. It sounds from the experience of others like it is at least sometimes enforced in lesser events.
I refer to the above announcement as the "Daily Waste of Ink"

In general, I think the regulation is only likely to be enforced if the opponents make an issue of it, and most players in national events are not interested in playing Secretary Bird over CCs.

[debrose]

barmar, on 2012-December-05, 15:50, said:

In general, I think the regulation is only likely to be enforced if the opponents make an issue of it, and most players in national events are not interested in playing Secretary Bird over CCs.

You are right that there will certainly be no enforcement if the opponents don't bring the problem to the director's attention, but even then it's questionable. Two examples from SF where I did play Secretary Bird a bit:

First session of LM Pairs - last round: Opponents have two convention cards on the table with lots of bidding agreements filled out, but zero about leads and carding. I'm declarer, and one of them has an attitude problem when I question this, so I call the director. Director's reaction: "Get it filled out by the next session" So it's no problem that their opponents didn't have access to this all session, or that we don't for the last two boards. They were playing upside down carding, btw. I didn't find out about their honor leads.

Second day of Blue Ribbons we had a non-alerting issue which required the presence of the director. I mentioned as a side point to the director (not in opps presence) that my opponents apparently had only a WBF convention card - no ACBL card in sight.
I played the same pair in the second session of the final day, and there was still just one folded up WBF card in sight. Why bother requiring an ACBL card if the director isn't even going to do anything when non-compliance is called to their attention?

[debrose]

Those two examples were something of an experiment by me, since I've been thinking about, and discussing this issue quite a bit lately. I've long suspected that no penalties are ever awarded for non-compliance with CC regulations at high levels, but haven't made much attempt to find out (i.e., play Secretary Bird). Of course I still don't have much a sample size, but it is galling that (apparently) players are being penalized for lesser offenses in regional pair games than NABC events.

The daily waste of ink in the Daily Bulletin is an embarrassment. It is grossly unfair to the players who work hard to comply, and perhaps even more so to those who actually are penalized for minor infractions, when most experts in high level events make little or no attempt at full compliance. Something needs to change here.

[Phil]

I've actually become too lax on these things.

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal. I see their 'recommended defense' but its some homemade business. I ask if the ACBL has approved it; LHO says yes (he's talking about the defense to their 2♥ opener which is legal (both majors)), but I can tell it isn't.

I don't want to be a PITA, because I know I'm one of like 10 people in the room thats probably aware of this. So I don't want to upset the table karma and just let it go.

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

The next round Jeff Goldsmith plays them, and he is also aware that its not OK, but he calls the director. Naturally this director can barely adjudicate a bid out of turn, so the legality of this is way above his pay grade. He says he will get back to him, but I don't think he ever did.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's playing Secretary Bird to call the director if the opponents in a serious event have no convention card (or worse, have an incorrect card).

I prefer to read the opponents' convention card rather than asking questions, because I don't want the opponents to know what information I'm interested in, and I want to reduce the UI I convey to my partner. By not providing a convention card, the opponents force me to ask instead of reading, so they obtain information to which they're not entitled. That is, they break the rules and gain an advantage from doing so. That seems a pretty good reason to call the director.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-December-05, 20:40, said:

I've actually become too lax on these things.

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal. I see their 'recommended defense' but its some homemade business. I ask if the ACBL has approved it; LHO says yes (he's talking about the defense to their 2♥ opener which is legal (both majors)), but I can tell it isn't.

I don't want to be a PITA, because I know I'm one of like 10 people in the room thats probably aware of this. So I don't want to upset the table karma and just let it go.

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

The next round Jeff Goldsmith plays them, and he is also aware that its not OK, but he calls the director. Naturally this director can barely adjudicate a bid out of turn, so the legality of this is way above his pay grade. He says he will get back to him, but I don't think he ever did.

Presumably they're playing their illegal method because they think it gains them IMPs. If they know that it's illegal, there's no qualitative difference between that and using hand-signals. I think you should have been a PITA.

Also, the assumption that they didn't gain by playing this method isn't valid. There may have been other boards, either against you or against other opponents, where they gained from a negative inference when 2♦ wasn't opened. You can't have them penalised for that, so you should ensure that when they do break the rules they are penalised.

[Cyberyeti]

There is a slight issue with this, if this was seriously enforced, if a pair upset me, all I'd have to do is surreptitiously walk off with their CC after I finish playing them to flush it down the toilet and watch them get caned in the next round.

[Mbodell]

The lack of CC is a definite problem and I agree it is not enforced very well at many levels. Random unknowns will occasionally get penalties, but it is rare (which can make it feel all the more unfair when it happens to you as selective enforcement).

Our teammate asked a world class top seed player (I think while other team mate was looking at other world class player's CC) for his CC in the spingold at the start of a session and was told "Are you f*****n kidding me?".

A number of players in top NABC events will have CC that are folded in 4 and in a shirt or pants pocket and only marginally filled in.

I will say in San Francisco my opponents were generally much better at pre-alerting than they have been in the past. It seemed like every other pair was pre-alerting transfer responses to 1♣ and 2♦ as single major over 1nt openings (a good sign IMO that these conventions should maybe be made GCC legal soon).

[Zelandakh]

Phil, on 2012-December-05, 20:40, said:

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal.

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

Out of interest, what would have happened if you said nothing whatsoever about the 2♦ opening initially and only called the TD after it had been used? Something like the better of Ave+ and the table result? That might have been a more effective defence than their homemade effort.

[Mbodell]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-06, 04:44, said:

Out of interest, what would have happened if you said nothing whatsoever about the 2♦ opening initially and only called the TD after it had been used? Something like the better of Ave+ and the table result? That might have been a more effective defence than their homemade effort.

While I think this is legal, I don't think it is good ethics and I think most people don't do this. If I find out my opponents are playing an illegal convention I'll tell them at the time, not hide it and hope to win the board later (and as others have pointed out there may be negative inferences or other bids that are freed up that give them wins even if the illegal bid doesn't come up). The closest I've gotten to doing this is when opponents are aggressive about playing their illegal convention in response to being told they are illegal and for whatever reason no director is handy to call, I've then agreed with partner "if this bid comes up we will call the director, but we'll try to play defense foo if forced to play on".

[Zelandakh]

Strange, I thought this was how it is done by top American pairs. Many pointed out in that thread that anything within the laws cannot be unethical. FWiiW I agree with you; but that will not stop players from getting ahead by using such methods. Or perhaps this is unethical if done by normal players but ok when done by world class players?

[wyman]

Mbodell, on 2012-December-06, 04:37, said:

Our teammate asked a world class top seed player (I think while other team mate was looking at other world class player's CC) for his CC in the spingold at the start of a session and was told "Are you f*****n kidding me?".

I would have summoned the director promptly and requested:

1) that opps be required to play SAYC
2) a ZT penalty

And if he refused either, I'd ask for the DIC.

But I've never really been one to worry about ruffling feathers. And I probably wouldn't have summoned the director had WCTSP not sassed me, but now that he's used intimidatory tactics (and just generally been a dick), I'm more than happy to let the directors sort it out.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 04:34, said:

There is a slight issue with this, if this was seriously enforced, if a pair upset me, all I'd have to do is surreptitiously walk off with their CC after I finish playing them to flush it down the toilet and watch them get caned in the next round.

If I'm your opponent, this ploy is highly unlikely to work out well for you.