[aguahombre]

Behavior attributed to top players in top events, and conveyed in these fora is really a surprise to me.

Wannabe's further down on the food chain, maybe. But except with provocation, I have never encountered or witnessed deliberate rudeness or reluctance to accomodate in any way from the true greats.

[Phil]

 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.

I was prepared to call the director later if necessary. However, (and I've mentioned this in the past 12 months), there is a divergent view from directors about what to do when an illegal convention is used.

To rehash, at a sectional (where no mid-chart is allowed), my teammates pulled out their 1M - 2♣ treatment (clubs, balanced or a limit raise in the major). The opponents weren't damaged, but the director gave us a major penalty (1/2 or a full board I think). One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

So I am very wary of calling the director in these matters. Frankly, I'm also tired of feeling like I am the bad guy when I call the director when illegal methods are used.

Perhaps this can be bumped over to "Changing Laws and Regulations", but its high time for the ACBL to give its directors some clear guidance on how to handle when an illegal treatment is used.

[Phil]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-06, 04:18, said:

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.

I don't want to say who this is, but I'll mention she is from The Netherlands and she has won a world championship. She is very nice, and I don't this pair was doing anything nefarious. They just didn't know any better.

Come to think about it, after Jeff called them on it, I think they just agreed to take it off their card.

During the same round, her partner alerted their 1♣ opening as "Precision". Unfortunately it included a 10-12 balanced hand. This actually did create damage, but by then we had blitzed the match, and I wasn't going to press it.

[blackshoe]

 Phil, on 2012-December-06, 09:49, said:

I was prepared to call the director later if necessary. However, (and I've mentioned this in the past 12 months), there is a divergent view from directors about what to do when an illegal convention is used.

To rehash, at a sectional (where no mid-chart is allowed), my teammates pulled out their 1M - 2♣ treatment (clubs, balanced or a limit raise in the major). The opponents weren't damaged, but the director gave us a major penalty (1/2 or a full board I think). One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

So I am very wary of calling the director in these matters. Frankly, I'm also tired of feeling like I am the bad guy when I call the director when illegal methods are used.

Perhaps this can be bumped over to "Changing Laws and Regulations", but its high time for the ACBL to give its directors some clear guidance on how to handle when an illegal treatment is used.

I couldn't find a pertinent regulation, but it seems to me that Law 40B5 is sufficient:

Quote

Law 40B5: When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament, the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty.

It seems like in your second case, the TD was in error. In your first case, the TD was not technically in error, but I think even 1/2 a board is a bit over the top. The standard 1/4 board should have been plenty.

IME some TDs get really testy if you ask them to "read it from the book" but if I'm convinced they're wrong, I'll be asking anyway.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-06, 10:15, said:

IME some TDs get really testy if you ask them to "read it from the book" but if I'm convinced they're wrong, I'll be asking anyway.

IME, I have learned to calmly ask for a reading or that he consult on his ruling if I disagree. I know better by now than to ask for a "second opinion", because they will say something like "O.K., you also need to lose some weight."

[jeffford76]

 Phil, on 2012-December-06, 09:49, said:

One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

Isn't this legal? One of the things allowed is this:

CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit.

[Cyberyeti]

 Phil, on 2012-December-06, 09:55, said:

During the same round, her partner alerted their 1♣ opening as "Precision". Unfortunately it included a 10-12 balanced hand. This actually did create damage, but by then we had blitzed the match, and I wasn't going to press it.

This is as bad as the pair who claimed as they sat down to be playing benji acol, open 2♣ and only later in the auction did I find out it could be a weak 2 in diamonds as well as the strong meaning (after we'd used our strong opening bid defence).

[mycroft]

The regulation, at least in the ACBL, is that for there to be an adjustment, there has to be damage (although it suggests that one should be very lenient to the NOS in determining 'damage'). For there to be a PP/DP, there would have to be an element of "you [should] know better".

Personally, I think that use of an illegal convention should be an automatic 1/4 board penalty, *and* adjustment for damage if any. It drives me nuts that people can "not notice" and play their MC system in GCC until someone a) notices, and b) knows, where those of us that actually follow the rules don't get to play their MC conventions. But, well, see the left-side bar of this post.

So, it could be that the first case that got a PP got one because they had been told before that it wasn't legal; and the second that they just thought "transfer responses vs overcalls" are legal because "transfer responses vs takeout doubles" are (because takeout doubles are a convention).

However, that specific auction (1m-(1♥)-2♥) is in fact legal - 2♥ is a cuebid which is allowed to be "any meaning". (now if they were playing generic transfer responses in competition, that's another story). In fact, it may even not be Alertable, as "most" meanings for direct cuebids are not Alertable (that's stuck right in the middle of a grey area, though).

[Edit - I see JeffFord got there before me].

[aguahombre]

I find it mildly amusing that one part of an illegal transfer scheme is legal by accident, but I guess it is true. The PP for playing the transfer method might still be applicable.

[Phil]

Sorry the auction was 1C 1S 2D - hearts.

[barmar]

 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.

I'd like to hope that even if the rule were normally enforced, the directors would be reasonable in the face of a sincere claim that their CC was stolen. Cops will sometimes let you off with a warning for minor traffic violations, surely directors could also be sympathetic.

[aguahombre]

The dog ate my homework.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2012-December-06, 12:53, said:

I'd like to hope that even if the rule were normally enforced, the directors would be reasonable in the face of a sincere claim that their CC was stolen. Cops will sometimes let you off with a warning for minor traffic violations, surely directors could also be sympathetic.

Yeah, but unless they're going to go round and check during the first round (which is not stupid) everybody will claim that.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2012-December-06, 12:04, said:

The regulation, at least in the ACBL, is that for there to be an adjustment, there has to be damage (although it suggests that one should be very lenient to the NOS in determining 'damage'). For there to be a PP/DP, there would have to be an element of "you [should] know better".

Where can I read this regulation? Or are you talking about Law 40B5, which I posted upthread?

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 16:39, said:

Yeah, but unless they're going to go round and check during the first round (which is not stupid) everybody will claim that.

Sorry, I live in a fantasy world where people occasionally tell the truth.

And if the TD is unsure whether to believe them, they could ask previous opponents if they noticed whether they noticed two CCs (unless the theft happens early in the event).

[debrose]

 barmar, on 2012-December-07, 10:39, said:

Sorry, I live in a fantasy world where people occasionally tell the truth.

And if the TD is unsure whether to believe them, they could ask previous opponents if they noticed whether they noticed two CCs (unless the theft happens early in the event).

Perhaps pairs that are likely victims of such theft will know themselves well enough to carry extra copies.

[gnasher]

I'd been wondering why I seemed to get through so many convention cards. Is the same person also flushing my reading glasses down the toilet?

[debrose]

I'm wondering if it's primarily just the handful of us who post about this on the internet who care whether or not ACBL CC regulations are improved and enforced. While I'm pretty sure most top level players don't care, I don't have any sense of the percentage of players overall. Perhaps the ACBL could conduct a poll, and act accordingly. If the membership doesn't want this, then stop the "Daily Waste of Ink" at the Nationals, and the occasional penalties.

I'd much rather see CC requirements scrapped altogether than the status quo. The status quo is too annoying. Even when the opps have a legible card, it's so often proven inaccurate in the past, that I usually need to ask (about carding) to clarify anyway. The current card lacks much of the info one would want, and has tons opps don't care about. If the card is intended primarily as an aid to forming partnership agreements, let's stop pretending it's even theoretically for the opponents' benefit. It never has been, in my almost 30 years of ACBL bridge.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-07, 11:36, said:

Is the same person also flushing my reading glasses down the toilet?

Do you wear them as intended?

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

I'd been wondering why I seemed to get through so many convention cards. Is the same person also flushing my reading glasses down the toilet?

 aguahombre, on 2012-December-07, 11:45, said:

Do you wear them as intended?

Was also going to ask if you're usually wearing them at the time