No convention card

[dickiegera]

When one opponent does not have a convention card what is the proper procedure?

 

On questioning a bid after dummy was tabled dummy card was not marked in that area and declarer had no card.

 

Dummy said there was a failure to alert was reason question was brought up.

 

They were playing a modified Big Club System.

 

Director told player with out card that before next board is played he must have card or they

will be require to play Yellow CARD.

 

Player then proceeded to fill out card while we waited for 5 minutes. Director ignored our complaint but did say if we didn't finish they would be the one penalized.

TEAM GAME

 

Is this right?

[blackshoe]

Pretty much.

 

ACBL General Conditions of Contest: 5. Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents.

• a. 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 only play the ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted 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 Match Point 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, then the director may give warnings or, if the deficiency is not corrected in a timely manner given the circumstances, assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate.

[Bbradley62]

Director told player with out card that before next board is played he must have card or they will be require to play Yellow CARD.

I love that!

 

Edit: I posted that before reading Blackshoe's post of the actual rules. I would have loved it more if the director had enforced the rules and instructed the offending pair that they were playing SAYC for the rest of the match, and then in future matches unless/until their convention cards were acceptably completed.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Bbradley62

[A2003]

There is not enough space to fill Big club system responses in the Convention card.

[Phil]

There is not enough space to fill Big club system responses in the Convention card.

 

There is if you write really itty-bitty.

[Bbradley62]

There is not enough space to fill Big club system responses in the Convention card.

Then no part of the convention card should be left blank.

[pran]

When one opponent does not have a convention card what is the proper procedure?

 

On questioning a bid after dummy was tabled dummy card was not marked in that area and declarer had no card.

 

Dummy said there was a failure to alert was reason question was brought up.

 

They were playing a modified Big Club System.

 

Director told player with out card that before next board is played he must have card or they

will be require to play Yellow CARD.

 

Player then proceeded to fill out card while we waited for 5 minutes. Director ignored our complaint but did say if we didn't finish they would be the one penalized.

TEAM GAME

 

Is this right?

 

In the Norwegian Bridge festival (with several championships) a couple of years ago a pair was discovered to have some questionable conventions which when we scrutinized them turned out to be unacceptable. The pair was ordered to prepare a revised set of convention cards and have this approved, but they were not allowed to delay the event so in the meantime they were ordered to use our Green card basic system, I assume this is what your Yellow card is?

 

Except for allowing the 5 minutes delay I think your Director's ruling was OK.

[dickiegera]

Pretty much.

 

I am most concerned about waiting 5 minutes.

Seems we were only one punished by needing to wait

[paulg]

In the Norwegian Bridge festival (with several championships) a couple of years ago a pair was discovered to have some questionable conventions which when we scrutinized them turned out to be unacceptable. The pair was ordered to prepare a revised set of convention cards and have this approved, but they were not allowed to delay the event so in the meantime they were ordered to use our Green card basic system, I assume this is what your Yellow card is?

 

Except for allowing the 5 minutes delay I think your Director's ruling was OK.

It is the same in Scotland. The Directors will provide each player with a copy of the Scottish Simple System. You must continue to play this system until you have fully completed two convention cards. You will not be allowed any additional time to do so; you will only be able to use the time available between rounds.

[blackshoe]

I am most concerned about waiting 5 minutes.

Seems we were only one punished by needing to wait

 

Write this on the blackboard 500 times: "Rectification is not punishment". Were you unable to complete the match in the time allotted for the whole? At what point in the match did this occur (was it early or late)?

 

It is the same in Scotland. The Directors will provide each player with a copy of the Scottish Simple System. You must continue to play this system until you have fully completed two convention cards. You will not be allowed any additional time to do so; you will only be able to use the time available between rounds.

 

This was a teams event. And under ACBL regs, not those of some other RA.

[pran]

[...]

This was a teams event. And under ACBL regs, not those of some other RA.

So was the event with my example from the Norwegian Bridge festival.

Not that I consider this relevant at all, I would have enforced exactly the same ruling in an event for pairs.

 

But of course, I do not know the ACBL regulations and in particular not what these regulations say about missing or incomplete CCs.

[dickiegera]

Write this on the blackboard 500 times: "Rectification is not punishment". Were you unable to complete the match in the time allotted for the whole? At what point in the match did this occur (was it early or late)?

 

 

Yes we were able to finish on time. It was the 2nd board of the match 6 boards total.

We had started on time and it was the 1st round.

I just didn't like the wait.

Thank you

[pran]

Write this on the blackboard 500 times: "Rectification is not punishment". Were you unable to complete the match in the time allotted for the whole? At what point in the match did this occur (was it early or late)?

Yes we were able to finish on time. It was the 2nd board of the match 6 boards total.

We had started on time and it was the 1st round.

I just didn't like the wait.

Thank you

With four boards to go you couldn't possibly be sure that you had plenty of time. I might have had more sympathy for the ruling if it had been the last or second last board in the match with plenty of time left.

 

But then there would not have been any reason for opponents to stress preparing new cards before playing the last board in the match instead of finishing the match and prepare their cards before the next match.

[Bbradley62]

Write this on the blackboard 500 times: "Rectification is not punishment".

penalties... are replaced by the concept of rectification to correct the result of improper procedure.

So, innocent mistakes are simply rectified... that does not mean that penalties shouldn't be applied to people who can't be bothered to play by simple rules like having useful convention cards.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say that players who flout the rules shouldn't be penalized.

 

Nice selective quoting there, btw. It comes from the third paragraph of the introduction, and the full quote is

Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification to correct the result of improper procedure.

Which doesn't mean quite the same thing as is implied by your editing. Earlier in the introduction is

[The laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

Note that "primarily" does not preclude penalties.

 

I stand by "rectification is not punishment".

[sfi]

A few years ago opponents showed up for the first round of a national teams event without cards (this despite having submitted them for publication some weeks before). The director found two blank cards and they filled out the basics in under a minute. They finished them off when one was dummy in the second hand, and nobody was any the worse off.

 

Why is the lack of a convention card being treated as a major deal? Surely if there is an issue relating to failure to alert or MI, they are more likely to be ruled against due to lack of corroborating evidence, but the laws handle that quite well already. And it's simple enough to ask if you care.

[Mbodell]

Why is the lack of a convention card being treated as a major deal? Surely if there is an issue relating to failure to alert or MI, they are more likely to be ruled against due to lack of corroborating evidence, but the laws handle that quite well already. And it's simple enough to ask if you care.

 

There are lots of things that you can't do quite as well without a convention card. Before a round I like to go over certain things with my partner if the opponents are playing anything we'd find unusual - many of which don't require a pre-alert (Flannery, polish club, different nt ranges, etc.). I also may want to look at parts of the card to find out things like your defense to nt or agreements over preempts before my turn as it may influence my call. I may like to know my opponents names. During the auction I may like to find out information about the bidding, or bids not taken, without creating excessive UI for my partner nor without disturbing the rest of the room with talking. I may want to know the opponents carding, without alerting them to the fact that I'm asking, so I can observe their signals and/or mess with their signals as declarer. I may want to know the opponents signals so I can observe their play as dummy when I'm not allowed to ask during the play but can have looked at the convention card at the start of the round or during the auction. Plus, in most tournaments, it is part of the condition of contest so the opponents not doing it is disrespectful to myself and the rest of the field.

 

It is one thing if someone is a pickup partnership in some zip ko, but in a real national team event I'd like to see the card before we start playing!

[aguahombre]

A few years ago opponents showed up for the first round of a national teams event without cards (this despite having submitted them for publication some weeks before). The director found two blank cards and they filled out the basics in under a minute. They finished them off when one was dummy in the second hand, and nobody was any the worse off.

 

Why is the lack of a convention card being treated as a major deal? Surely if there is an issue relating to failure to alert or MI, they are more likely to be ruled against due to lack of corroborating evidence, but the laws handle that quite well already. And it's simple enough to ask if you care.

 

In your anecdotal case, it seems the players were trying to make up for an oversight, and the TD was working with them to do so.

 

In the OP case, it seems the players were simply too lazy to follow the rules (that is a big deal, IMO). In both cases, we recognize the TD showed he was human and in-charge.

[sfi]

There are lots of things that you can't do quite as well without a convention card.

 

I still don't see the big deal. If you look before the round, you would have known that they don't have a card and it could have been resolved at that point. In the meantime, they can tell you the unusual parts of their system (being strong club players they should be used to that). The lack of a card is unlikely to create too many UI situations since it's generally obvious what you are interested in whether you ask or grab the card to look. And I've had it pointed out by an SB that it's against the laws to look at the card as dummy.

 

Sure it's disrespectful, but it's not a hard issue to resolve. Resorting to forcing them to play SAYC without one seems an extreme and unnecessary measure.

[pran]

[...]

And I've had it pointed out by an SB that it's against the laws to look at the card as dummy.

According to what law?

From L40B2{c}: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card[...]

This law doesn't say "Player except dummy" (Dummy must of course be very careful not drawing attention to any aspect of the game while looking at opponents' card.)

 

Sure it's disrespectful, but it's not a hard issue to resolve. Resorting to forcing them to play SAYC without one seems an extreme and unnecessary measure.

Forcing them to play SAYC (in ACBL) or a corresponding basic system elsewhere is a simple, effective and IMHO very fair ruling for so long as they do not comply with the rules on system cards.

[Phil]

Thumbs up to directors enforcing no ccs with mandatory SAYC. I think its great.

 

If we are in a long team match I want to understand the nuances of your system and to the extent I can glean this from your cc and by asking questions I will. Many players keep wadded up cards in their back pocket, and grouse when you ask for a copy. These same players will often give you dismissive answers when you ask about their methods which is irritating and against the spirit of disclosure.

[blackshoe]

There is a regulation requiring both players in a partnership to have a completed system card (and such cards have to match, and to have both players' names on them). In the ACBL this is part of the general conditions of contest applicable to every tournament and every club game (unless the club specifies otherwise) in the jurisdiction. There are those who think they're above this (we have a player locally who never carries his own card — either the pair has only one, or his partner carries both); there are those who think its a waste of time; there are those who will say "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions". But the regulation is there, and bridge is to be played according to the laws and regulations in force. If you think changing (or deleting entirely) the regulation is a good idea, post your argument in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here.

[sfi]

[...]

 

According to what law?

From L40B2{c}: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card[...]

This law doesn't say "Player except dummy" (Dummy must of course be very careful not drawing attention to any aspect of the game while looking at opponents' card.)

 

It's the rest of that law that you elided that is relevant. None of those three conditions are in force - I believe the decision (and it took a number of directors a fair while to work out whether they had to accede to this call) was that dummy does not have a "turn to play" during the play of the hand.

 

Dummy reaching for the card because they want to follow the opponents' signals is a different issue. I was just bored and looking for something to read at the time though - it was all pretty amusing.

 

Forcing them to play SAYC (in ACBL) or a corresponding basic system elsewhere is a simple, effective and IMHO very fair ruling for so long as they do not comply with the rules on system cards.

 

This seems to be the crux of my disagreement. I don't think it's fair at all for something that can be easily dealt with and rectified without what I see to be draconian measures.

[aguahombre]

But the regulation is there, and bridge is to be played according to the laws and regulations in force. If you think changing (or deleting entirely) the regulation is a good idea, post your argument in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here.

Please don't post it there, either. There are more important things to consider for the next Laws changes than accommodating people who don't have the courtesy to produce a document containing their agreements.

[sfi]

Please don't post it there, either. There are more important things to consider for the next Laws changes than accommodating people who don't have the courtesy to produce a document containing their agreements.

 

I wasn't planning to - the laws don't cover this topic at all.