Non pre-alerted brown sticker convention

[nige1]

The rules in use were perfectly clear. The problem was that the director didn't enforce them. The only solution to this type of problem is uniformly good directors.

My impression is that relevant rules-variants are perfectly clear to neither directors nor players :(

[sfi]

My impression is that relevant rules-variants are perfectly clear to neither directors nor players :(

 

There is a requirement for players to protect themselves at times. For example, if you have the auction 1S-(2NT) with no alert, and your side proceeds on the assumption that this shows a strong balanced hand, do you really think you will get an adjustment if you are at all above tournament beginner status? This is one of the issues in this thread - the OP thinks this is not an analogous situation in Australia while at least two experienced directors disagree with him.

[nige1]

I agree with this. I wouldn't have allowed you to discuss your defence during the hand, but I would have been prepared to consider an adjustment after the hand if you had been damaged, and I would have allowed you some time to discuss a defence after the hand for the rest of the match.

Woudl gordontd allow mrdct and partner to consult a written defence under any circumstances e.g..

• Mrdct explained privately that he and his partner had agreed a written defence, a long time ago, but neither partner had revised it recently?
• Mrdct's opponents offered to provide a written defence?
• An official written defence were available?

[mrdct]

There is a requirement for players to protect themselves at times. For example, if you have the auction 1S-(2NT) with no alert, and your side proceeds on the assumption that this shows a strong balanced hand, do you really think you will get an adjustment if you are at all above tournament beginner status? This is one of the issues in this thread - the OP thinks this is not an analogous situation in Australia while at least two experienced directors disagree with him.

The example you have given bears little similarity with my case as it would be completely obvious to any experienced player that 2NT probably isn't strong balanced and they should, indeed, ask in order to protect themselves. I would comment, however, that in my local club about 90% of the players there would play 2NT there as strong balanced (believe it or not) so it probably wouldn't be unreasonable there to proceed on that basis without asking.

 

My case is quite different in that my opponents volunteered a verbal system overview, did not draw my attention to anything unusual in their system, did not give any pre-alerts and did not have any BS aspects of their system flagged on their convention card. In that context, playing in a 9-board match in a country congress, I think it's completely reasonable to proceed on the assumption that they are not playing any unusual two-level opening that I might need to prepare a defence for. I also think that it's reasonable for me to assume that a pair with a computer-generated colour printed system card who have won at least one national open title, represented their state and routinely contest national open and seniors team playoffs; would be familiar and compliant with their disclosure obligations.

 

I'm sure that the TDs consulted on this matter mean well and are working within a framework where their primary goal is the orderly conduct of events in compliance with the general principles and intent of the laws and regulations, but not necessarily a literal interpretation. In fairness also to the TDs, a lot of the laws and regs around this matter are "should" requirements which are rarely penalised as provided for in the laws and I guess quite rightly they would only look at handing our procedural penalties for flagrant breaches by players who ought to know better. My main gripe here is that even though I'm the NOS, I'm being held to this "you ought to have protected yourself" concept whilst my opponents with their dodgey convention card and inadequate disclosure get away scott-free.

 

You need to understand also that in most Victorian coountry congresses the time allocation is usually only about 6.5 minutes per board (in this event we had one hour to play 9 boards). This was the last round and I had a four-hour drive ahead of me to get home, so I was understandably quite keen to get started as soon as I'd adequately ascertained what my opponents were playing.

 

Another interesting aspect of this case is that when my opponents were contesting this year's Australian open team playoffs, where Brown Sticker conventions are not allowed¹, their convention card had six different conventions/treatments listed in the pre-alerts section; so they obviously know how to do it properly but just chose not to for this particular country congress.

 

¹This is done to mirror the target event which in Olympic years is the Category 3 WMSG which bans BS conventions at all stages.

[mrdct]

Woudl gordontd allow mrdct and partner to consult a written defence if....

• If Mrdct explained privately that he and his partner had agreed a written defence, a long time ago, but neither partner had revised at it recently.
• If mrdct's opponents offered to provide a written defence.
• If an official written defence were available.

One of the outcomes of this incident is that going forward I'm going carry around with me a couple of copies of a written defence for unanchored twos and twerb/suction (which an increasing number of people are playing over a short club opening in Australia) and if my opponents pre-alert I'll produce the written defence then and, and if they fail to pre-alert and it comes up I'll call the TD and ask that my partner and I be allowed to use our written defence. That may or may not work as under the ABF regs, written defences need to be approved by the TD and handed to the opponents prior to the start of play. I guess it will be easy enough for me to get the Victorian State CTD to pre-approve my written defences and surely opponents who fail to pre-alert won't have a leg to stand on if they wheel-out a BS mid-match after not pre-alerting.

 

Unlike the ACBL, the ABF doesn't maintain "official" written defences to unusual conventions; but google has many! At the moment I usually use a hybrid of the Triple-X defence (1st double values, 2nd double takeout, 3rd double penalties - which I think Keiran Dyke was one of the original proponents) in conjunction with lebensohl but I think I might try to put together something a bit more involved if I don't need to memorise it.

[blackshoe]

Yesterday, at a local Sectional, the TD was the same one who's going to run the Regional at the end of the month — the one to whom that Regional's Tournament Chair referred me regarding my questions about the availability of the Mid-Chart, as I mentioned upthread. I asked him this general question: "Are there any events at Sectional or Regional level in this Unit at which the Mid-Chart would be allowed?" He said "at Sectionals, no way". Of Regionals, he said "in theory the top bracket, etc, etc, (events where the mid-chart may be allowed at Regionals and Sectionals without advertising, yes, but the field is never large enough to meet the requirements. Pairs events, no way." He then commented that only a few methods could be played at pairs anyway. However, of the 15 entries that required an approved defense (and are thus limited to N boards) 9 of them can be played at pairs (2+ boards per round), 4 require 6 board rounds, and 2 require 12 board rounds. There are 20 total entries on the Mid-Chart's approved list. The first five do not require a defense and can be played in any Mid-Chart event. Item 1 on the list is "all of the General Convention Chart". B-)

 

In theory, the Tournament Organizer (the Unit) could authorize the Mid-Chart for any of these events, but it seems that's never going to happen.

 

Apparently we just don't have enough players around here. Maybe I should move back to Albuquerque. Or to Vegas. :ph34r: