Big Club / Convention Card grumble

[mycroft]

Yes, it should be there (at sectional games and higher, by regulation, must be there. Yeah, right). Definitely, it should be accessible to RHO without inciting a trespassing or assault charge. Yes, it should be legible (but I was told in grade 10 that "anything that comes in handwritten gets returned unmarked. What am I supposed to do with a pickup?) Yes, it should be actually the card you're playing with this partner (and boy, does that drive me up the twist).

 

Still doesn't happen. A couple of procedural penalties would help, but the ACBL are pretty lax about it (but if you're playing something odd, and are not troubling to make the CC available, they'll be less lax. Precision, despite the culture, ain't that odd, in my view. EHAA is). Also, the regulation Ed quoted is germane.

 

If you play a two-session day at a Sectional and don't run into one strong club pair, that would be uncommon. It would be nice to review the defence so that partner hasn't forgotten (we, of course, never forget :-), but no more so than our defence to Flannery. Not *having one* is like not having a defence to Flannery, too - inconvenient, but not really a big deal.

[Vampyr]

You are not being unreasonable if you call the director if you do not find a readable or touchable (yuck!) convention card.

 

 

At the only Nationals I have attended in the past 15 years (Hawaii) there was a very fat man sitting with his legs apart and the CC protruding from under his crotch. I didn't need to know the system that much...

[Quantumcat]

In ACBLland there really aren't that many different systems being played. A vast majority of players are playing some sort of Eastern Scientific or 2/1. The exceptions are generally a weak NT of some sort or a strong club of some sort. These are things that any partnership that isn't playing for the first time will have already discussed. Really, the exchanging of CC would be mostly a waste of time here.

I have a theory. In ACBL land you can't practicably invent anything new so there is a finite set of systems and conventions you can come across. You can agree a defence to all of them and never need look at a CC. Anywhere else though, you can come across weird home made stuff or simply something you've never heard of, so there is a real need to look at your opponent's CCs in case you have to quickly agree a defence, so there are rules about having to provide them to your opponents.

[jillybean]

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup

partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that

CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

[semeai]

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup

partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that

CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

 

In case you find yourself in this situation again, be aware that nothing horrible should befall you if you've had no discussion. Natural will do well enough for a hand.

[TimG]

I have a theory. In ACBL land you can't practicably invent anything new so there is a finite set of systems and conventions you can come across. You can agree a defence to all of them and never need look at a CC. Anywhere else though, you can come across weird home made stuff or simply something you've never heard of, so there is a real need to look at your opponent's CCs in case you have to quickly agree a defence, so there are rules about having to provide them to your opponents.

 

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

[blackshoe]

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

Seems to me the question is whether we in North America want a nice, bland, "everybody plays the same system" (more or less) world, or one that allows a little innovation and experimentation. Clearly ACBL management thinks the majority of their customers want the former (and they are probably right). I suppose that's good for the ACBL as a business, at least in the short run. But is it good for bridge? Sure we can let the Poles and the Australians (and probably others) take over the "innovations in bidding" field, but should we? For some of us, at least, stifling innovation severely lessens interest in the game.

 

Side prediction: George Rosenkranz is in his 90s. When he passes away, I expect it'll take the ACBL about two days to eliminate the artificial and forcing 1NT opening from the GCC - which sooner or later will effectively kill Romex, as no new players will be able to play it, even if the opening is moved to the Mid-Chart. I wouldn't really be surprised to see Romex end up on the trash heap with the Forcing Pass systems. :(

[jillybean]

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

 

I disagree, there are many times that I have glanced at my opponents card to see what bids they have available, their carding or what ever.

It is often preferable to glance at the card rather than ask, create potential UI for partner and 'wake up' the opps.

In teams I study the card before the match.

[aguahombre]

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup

partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that

CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

This is precisely my view. But, of course, that never stops me from adding things :rolleyes:

 

1)Maybe there should be a separate section under IBLF for rants about practice vs. regs, which don't quite come up to suggestions for changes (yet). If a thread produces something substantial, it could then be streamlined and moved to the other forum ---and eventually might work its way to Grattan.

 

2)There just aint no way for a pick-up partnership to have discussed all of the variations to use based on what the opponents do; strong club systems are just one instance. We don't need the opponents' CC, but others absolutely do need it. They can see the NT range and quickly decide whether they consider it weak or strong and whether they want to change their methods over it. They can see the generic "short club" and reaffirm whether it affects what a takeout double should look like. They can prepare for certain 2-bids. All this from a quick glance at the front of a properly filled-out and available (ACBL) card.

[barmar]

I disagree, there are many times that I have glanced at my opponents card to see what bids they have available, their carding or what ever.

It is often preferable to glance at the card rather than ask, create potential UI for partner and 'wake up' the opps.

In teams I study the card before the match.

And how often have you found something that required discussion with your partner?

 

And I doubt very much that asking will wake up the opps. It's rare that players with unusual things on their CC forget them, unless they're recent changes (I think my partner is finally getting the hang of Meckwell vs 1NT).

 

Or how about our Mexican 2♦? Are you going to read through all our notes on the response structure, so you don't have to ask what they mean? Do you think you'll remember it after a glance?

[TimG]

Seems to me the question is whether we in North America want a nice, bland, "everybody plays the same system" (more or less) world, or one that allows a little innovation and experimentation. Clearly ACBL management thinks the majority of their customers want the former (and they are probably right). I suppose that's good for the ACBL as a business, at least in the short run. But is it good for bridge? Sure we can let the Poles and the Australians (and probably others) take over the "innovations in bidding" field, but should we? For some of us, at least, stifling innovation severely lessens interest in the game.

 

Side prediction: George Rosenkranz is in his 90s. When he passes away, I expect it'll take the ACBL about two days to eliminate the artificial and forcing 1NT opening from the GCC - which sooner or later will effectively kill Romex, as no new players will be able to play it, even if the opening is moved to the Mid-Chart. I wouldn't really be surprised to see Romex end up on the trash heap with the Forcing Pass systems. :(

 

Yes, they want bland. The ACBL will not allow real innovation at the GCC level, it will only happen at mid-chart and higher, and they are doing their best to slow the innovation at the mid-chart level as well.

 

I can't remember the last time I thought I needed to see a opponent's CC.

 

When was the last time you encountered anyone playing Romex? Perhaps it enjoys some isolated pockets of popularity, but I rather doubt it. I have never encountered anyone playing it (though I know someone who used to pay it).

[blackshoe]

When was the last time you encountered anyone playing Romex? Perhaps it enjoys some isolated pockets of popularity, but I rather doubt it. I have never encountered anyone playing it (though I know someone who used to pay it).

I used to play it. There is a player here who frequently played against it - when she lived in Mexico. However, that's not really the point. Romex isn't that complicated a system - it's really 2/1 at heart, with more forcing openings (1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2NT). There's really no reason why it shouldn't be on the GCC — and frankly, no good reason why it isn't played more widely.

[TimG]

I used to play it. There is a player here who frequently played against it - when she lived in Mexico. However, that's not really the point. Romex isn't that complicated a system - it's really 2/1 at heart, with more forcing openings (1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2NT). There's really no reason why it shouldn't be on the GCC — and frankly, no good reason why it isn't played more widely.

 

The point is that there would be LOTS of unnecessary passing back and forth of CCs if you do it so that you can be warned your opponents are playing Romex. Much more efficient would be to have those players who play Romex announce such at the start of each round.

 

I played Polish Club for a while. We announced as much to the opponents at the start of each round -- a forcing club that might be natural or might be a weak NT is something that, while GCC legal, the opponents are unlikely to plan for.

[Vampyr]

The point is that there would be LOTS of unnecessary passing back and forth of CCs if you do it

 

No, there wouldn't; in places where CCs are exchanged they are not returned until the end of the round.

[blackshoe]

And that would drive most players in North America absolutely bonkers. B-)

[blackshoe]

I've already mentioned my attempts to exhange cards with an opponent shortly after I got back to the States from England. A couple of times they actually let it go — for a while. I would look at it, and then put it down near me. They would invariably grab it back, usually while giving me a dirty look. "My card! Mine!" :o :lol:

[Quantumcat]

I've already mentioned my attempts to exhange cards with an opponent shortly after I got back to the States from England. A couple of times they actually let it go for a while. I would look at it, and then put it down near me. They would invariably grab it back, usually while giving me a dirty look. "My card! Mine!" :o :lol:

A CCs natural place is in front of your opponent. Since you're not supposed to look at your own CC during the bidding there isn't much point having it in front of you? I wonder if those people know this.

 

I wonder if your opponents were actually playing a very sophisticated defence to the Chameleon system :)

[semeai]

A CCs natural place is in front of your opponent. Since you're not supposed to look at your own CC during the bidding there isn't much point having it in front of you? I wonder if those people know this.

 

People keep their scores on the reverse side, so they write in it after every hand and thus like to have it close. If you just filled out the convention card anew, you might just have the sheet of paper out, folded in half, with the scores inside, or conceivably folded in quarters in your pocket or under your leg. Otherwise people put it in a plastic sleeve that has flaps to hold onto more on the other side, where you add in blank ones with the scoresheet side showing (some then fold it, some lay it flat).

 

Are convention cards and scoresheets separate in England, or do people just take it back between hands to write scores on?

[sfi]

In Australia (where QuantumCat is from) both sides of the card are used for agreements. The inside of the card (when you fold it in half) contains information that the opponents are likely to need less frequently, such as responses to bids and agreements later in the auction.

 

The front has basic system, opening bids, and common defences, and a space for "pre-alerts", while the back has common continuations (jump shifts to an opening bid, ace asking, etc.) and carding.

 

Often the inside isn't filled out, particularly for pickup partnerships, and there is a simple system card that just comprises the outside bits of the standard one.

 

There is a link on the ABF site to a program used to produce them, and some completed examples under the recent ANC event information.

[semeai]

In Australia (where QuantumCat is from)

 

Oops! Many apologies.:unsure:

 

[nice extended description of ABF convention cards]

 

I guess there are separate personal scoresheets, and people don't bundle/stack/fold them together?

[sfi]

Yes, even at club level there are separate scoresheets available - often tailored to the event (in sets of 9 if playing 9 board matches, and so on).

[blackshoe]

The ACBL would do well to emulate the ABF (and the EBU, which similarly has a card in which both sides of the page are used for agreements) and get rid of the "personal score" on the inside of the SC. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

[Quantumcat]

I don't really understand having a personal score in the actual system card. Won't you have to fill out a brand new system card for every event you play? (and every match in a teams event?)

[Trinidad]

I don't really understand having a personal score in the actual system card. Won't you have to fill out a brand new system card for every event you play? (and every match in a teams event?)

No, players have these plastic sleeves: On the outside you will find the convention card that is used. On the inside, you will find the score card. For each new event, they will put in a new score card, keeping the convention card on the outside. I have seen sleeves that were a cm thick: 1 CC with n score cards (n>>1).

 

So, in practice, the ACBL has a score card booklet where the outside can be used as a convention card.

 

When I used to play in the ACBL, one person in the pair (South) would keep the sleeve with the private score cards. We kept our (laminated) convention cards separate and we would put them in front of our opponents. Most of the time they would respond angrily: We were cluttering their part of the table with our convention cards.

 

Rik

[paulg]

Even at the nationals I come across a lot of pick-up partnerships who have just agreed a few elements of system and their convention card IS their scorecard. As I mentioned previously, I am impressed by how good their common understanding is and little they have to agree.